Strategic Planning Committee, 11 December 2024

00:01:44Okay, good morning everyone. We'll get started. There's no fire alarm drill anticipated today, so if the alarm sounds, please leave the building through the nearest fire exit by following the signs above the doors, make your way to the rear of the car park, and wait there until you are told it is safe to return. Please make sure all phones are either muted or switched off.

00:02:05To start the meeting, then, good morning, everyone, and welcome to this Strategic Planning Committee meeting on Wednesday, the 11th of December, 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, Damian Hunter, Planning Solicitor, Wendy Harris, Democratic Services Officer, and Matt Dickens, Planning Policy Manager. Can I remind everyone present, please, that this meeting is recorded for publication on the Council's website, so please can members and officers making a contribution to the meeting use their microphone or your comments will not be recorded.

00:02:45We will now start the meeting by doing a roll call of committee members and declarations of interest. Wendy.

00:02:53Thank you, Chair. So I will start with yourself, Councillor Olive. I am present and I have nothing to declare at this time.

00:03:02Thank you. Vice-Chair Councillor Howe present and nothing to declare Councillor Brian Bailey president no decorations thank you Councillor Jess Bailey present no decorations thank you thank you Councillor Blakey present no declarations other than say that I have had a number of canvassing emails from residents notably from Broaklist thank you I'll come to call it Councillor Brown in a moment because he's just turned up I need to um log him in uh Councillor Bethany collins present and no declarations other than lobbying emails Councillor Fernley present um yes I've also had lots of lobbying emails from

00:04:22Thank you Councillor Ingham present no declarations Councillor Jung uh present uh I've had a number of lobbying uh emails thank you um Councillor Levine will be with us um a little later and it's back to you chair Councillor Brown we wouldn't want you to feel left out colin for the record colin do you have any declarations do you want to say that on

00:05:17The record no decorations and I am present at last thank you Councillor Brown sorry chair could I just ask for non-committee members if they have any declarations as well Councillor Rylance Thank you, so I'm Broadcliffe Parish Councillor, resident of Broadcliffe and I have received a number of lobbying emails from Broadcliffe residents, thanks Sorry, Broadcliffe Parish Councillor And lobbying and what was the other one? And I'm a resident of Broadcliffe as well. Thank you Any other members, anything to declare?

00:05:58No? Okay, thank you very much We come then to agenda Item 1, apologies. I have Councillor Olly Davey written down, and I also bear apologies from Councillors Hayward and Ledger. Are there any other apologies folks wish to record? No? Okay, thank you very much, Members. Agenda Item 2, declarations of interest, we have already done. I have Agenda Item 3, declaration of interest as well, which obviously we have already done.

00:06:31Um so not sure what's gone on there either way agenda item four matters of urgency there are none and agenda item five confidential or exempt items there are none which brings us then to the main event agenda item six the East Devon Local Plan approval for regulation 19 consultation and we start that agenda item by coming to public speaking for this morning session on chapters one through five and first on my list here Councillor Martin smith from fenerton parish council good morning Councillor Smith welcome at item six on your agenda you are being recommended to approve the regulation 19 version of the local pan plan for publication now before you take that step I want to highlight some of the glaring internal inconsistencies in the applications of policy SBO1, SBO4 in the plan, and how those inconsistencies are at odds with the planned vision.

00:07:37Planned vision clearly states that for rural East Devon, there will be, and I quote, modest, sensitively planned development to meet the needs of local communities. You have now transparently altered the wording of the spatial strategy policy SBO1 from the Regulation 18 version, so that for Tier 4 settlements it now reads, allowing limited development at the service villages, and have dropped any reference to meeting local needs. This was clearly a device to overcome the fact that for some Tier 4 settlements, including Fenerton, you have proposed within the plan more housing than is necessary to meet local need. The vision and the policy are now different, and neither is being applied consistently.

00:08:26Fenerton, a small rural village, is expected to newly accommodate 102 houses, the highest figure for any Tier 4 settlement, and it's also a greater number of newly proposed houses than for three out of the five in the Tier 3 above, which have far better access to jobs, services and infrastructure. This is not logical. This proposal is not consistent with the vision and the policy of the plan and will result in the promotion of unsustainable development. This is not sound planning. In addition, under policy SBO4, the plan proposes 4.64 hectares of land in Tier 4 Fenerton for employment use. This is a greater area of land proposed a B2 general industry and B8 storage and distribution than proposed for the whole of either Tier 1 Exmarry or Tier 2 Axminster and more employment lands in total than Tier 3 Austria and Seton combined. That cannot be right. Only three other rural villages have any employment proposed and the largest is a quarter of a hectare.

00:09:36Again, the spatial distribution proposed makes no sense, particularly as unlike the other villages, the employment uses proposed in Fenerton are not restricted to office but include general industry and storage and distribution. Anyone who has any experience with the country lanes that serve our village will know it's not remotely feasible that large commercial vehicles can sensibly access the area proposed. The scale of both housing and employment uses proposed for Fenerton in a plan cannot be justified, do not follow division, the policy of the plan and are not founded on clear evidence base. I urge you even at this late stage to reconsider and not to publish an unsound plan.

00:10:19Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for your comments, Councillor Smith. Next up we have [member of the public] regarding Chapter 4 of the plan. You will want to switch the microphone off and on again to reset the timer. Whenever you're ready.

00:10:36Good morning. I want to speak to you today in respect of Chapter 4, Site Selection. My name is [name removed]. I live in Dowditch Lane, which is in Ting Tong. I'm aware that some of you were completely unaware of Ting Tong. To assist you, the name probably derives from the Vikings, and is a reference to public assemblies of men. Apt for today, it predates me, you, and East Devon District.

00:11:12Despite, however, you being unaware of Ting Tong, at your meeting of the 3rd of September, you decided to allocate a huge parcel of land against the advice of your officers in and around Ting Tong. This land has the potential for over 1,000 houses, 1,000 houses, 4,000 people, 2,000 cars. There was no representation from the residents of Ting Tong on the 3rd of September meeting because we were totally unaware of the threat to our homes, our community, our ecology and our services.

00:11:45The officer recommendation to that meeting was not to allocate. We had no reason to suspect the manoeuvring that took place that morning to bring 20A into play. Other people obviously did, however, and I cannot fathom how Eagle Investment and Councillor Hall had the aspiration and foresight to be present. The notes of the working party meeting of the 26th of July tell us that EXMO 20A was not discussed at length.

00:12:13At your meeting on September 3rd, the 11 committee members present gave the whole process from non-allocation to allocation just 17 minutes, another 6 minutes for 20B. By comparison, you took 28 minutes not to allocate Exmo_07, I beg your pardon, Limpston 7. 1,000 homes, 4,000 people, 2,000 cars in 23 minutes. Had we had the foresight to attend on September 3rd, I would have asked you to consider just four things.

00:12:46One, this is an SSSI. Two, it directly abuts the national landscape area of the pebble beds, one of three in the whole of Europe. Three, there is no practical safe access to the site Four, the site is within 100 yards of Budleigh Yes, than two miles from the High Street However, it's four miles from Exmouth High Street The health, educational, social and utility services of Budleigh will not be able to cope The proposal to allocate that day alongside Eagle Investment talked flowingly of infrastructure development I say to you all, for years go to Cranbrook and find a co-op and a chip shop. I therefore ask you to think, think again and think carefully about the allocation of EXMO20.

00:13:33Give it the time it deserves and if necessary revisit your plans. A thousand homes, 4,000 people, 2,000 cars, SSSI, national landscape and the community that just will not be able to cope. Minus five, sorry.

00:13:52Thank you, [member of the public]. We come then to [member of the public]. I hope I've pronounced that right, on Chapter 5.

00:14:06Good morning. I've been in Feniton since 2014, and this village has continued to expand. It is not now the lovely village that I came and fell in love with. You don't know about our location. You need to come and see what we have to put up with. and I am more than happy to accommodate you. The proposed development for our small rural village, why is it bigger than every other village of the relevant size?

00:14:42I'd like to know that. The village is car dependent. We do have a rural bus every two hours if they run, but a mere flooding, ice on the road, we are cut off. We do have a bus to Honiton, but it's only twice a week. So we have no facilities, no infrastructure for the elderly. We've got a train station. Not every train stops. They're infrequent, and we've now had bus replacements, which is adding to the chaos on the roads.

00:15:17I've had a terrible experience with traffic, hence I've ended up with a walking stick, and this is only going to have this development further impact. The roads are too narrow. The vehicles are eroding our hedgerows. The congestion with the big articulated lorries, they're being sent through Venetan by sat-nav. And this is only going to get worse with this development going through. We've got no payments for the elderly or children to walk on on the outskirts of the village.

00:15:50The NHS and Age Concern advise us to get up and walk so that we're not blocking the NHS. Well, I'm afraid I'm a statistic now. I'm blocking artery surgery. I am blocking the NHS physio and I'm going to be blocking the hospital now. And all because of inconsiderate drivers using our little village for a short run. The roads we have are not fit to carry the today traffic.

00:16:17Now, this development would increase the housing. And again, many of the families coming are two vehicles. Where are they going to park? what we're going to have all this extra extra traffic the school is at capacity and oversubscribed and I can assure you every school holiday there is a repair van there the drainage is not for fit for present at the moment because I get these snotty letters from southwest water so all this proposed development is going to add to it you are eroding my quality of life if you past this. You are eroding the heritage of the rural villages and you are eroding the heritage of Devon which as born and bred I am proud to be known as a Devonian. All I can say to you is if you let this go through then all I can say to the committee and East Devon District Council is shame on you. Thank you. Thank you [member of the public]. Next we come to Leslie Oates again on chapter five and again you will want to reset the microphone there just press the 19 if you just press the

00:17:33Button twice that will restart your time which button on the right for context I've lived in Devon all my life and moved to East Devon in 2017 my son is on a low wage but currently pays 1100 pound a month to rent a home for his family so I'm well aware of the need for affordable housing and employment opportunities. However I'm dismayed to see the disproportionately large level of development suggested for certain rural areas compared to that proposed in larger much better resource settlements. Majority of our villages do not have the infrastructure to support further sustainable development. My concerns are the lack of effective regular and reliable public transport leading to obvious increase commuting by car and significant increase in commercial vehicles. More traffic will congest the network of the not fit for purpose lanes connecting our villages, likely increasing the risk of accidents, pollution, noise, further increasing anxiety stress and ill health. Congestion will also increase difficulties of access for emergency vehicles. Additional traffic will surely contravene your objective of delivering net-zero carbon emissions by 2040

00:18:57And will not meet another objective of encouraging healthy lifestyles and living environments for all. On the 9th of December, MP Richard Ford discussed in Parliament that 57% of East Devon is made up of national landscapes and less protected from development. He continued how this places an unfair burden on the remaining 43% available area to accommodate targets. While I appreciate not meeting targets will impose penalties, should we not be fighting back rather than shoe-warning developments into ridiculous spaces, putting us at risk, eroding our countryside heritage and wildlife?

00:19:37I believe the council have already been made aware of the real threat to life posed by the constant discharge of raw sewage to residents by [member of the public], consultant for infectious diseases, and I'm concerned development will negate and waste the thousands of public money that is being spent on the flood alleviation scheme in Feniton, highlighting alleviation, not cure.

00:20:02I sincerely hope that, as Labour Minister Matthew Pennycock promised, the Planning Inspectorate will vigorously test this plan, see sense and revoke some of the proposed developments due to the devastating impact it will have on some of our communities. Finally, despite residents being on the planning portal and reading local press, some miscommunications and ultimately the opportunity of speaking on our specific concerns recently. Please can I respectfully request East Devon District Council advertise meetings more effectively, remembering some members of the public do not have access to a computer or the internet.

00:20:48Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. We then have [member of the public] regarding Chapter 5.

00:21:16Okay, thank you. We will move through and see if he manages to make it in time then. Next up then, I have [member of the public] on Chapters 4 and 5. Yes, because you're speaking on behalf of two other people with six minutes.

00:21:52Good morning, committee. you're getting it in the neck from just about everywhere I imagine at this stage of your process. You've had your constituents bombard you with messages, you've got your government targets and to be honest with you I do have some sympathy. Your report for today's meeting tells us that this stage of the process is concerned with the council making the plan public allowing people to raise challenges and objections.

00:22:24So five of us, soon to be six, came here today to tell you that we do not live in a tier three. We live in Broadclist Village. Now we've heard that term used an awful lot in these meetings when justifying your allocations. Eleanor Rylance, who is here today, already told you she did not enter politics to make residents' lives worse. But we genuinely fear that with this plan, some residents' lives will be made much, much worse.

00:23:02We've heard statements in these meetings from some of you that make us question who or what it is you're representing. Chair, you've been explicit we cannot talk about individual allocations today. So instead, I will say something about Broadclist Parish. It just so happens that within the entire parish of Broadclist, the whole allocation is in our village, and we think it's really, really huge. Your plan tells us that rural East Devon will retain its outstanding charm and character with modest, sensitively planned development.

00:23:37Now, we know you've worked very hard on this plan, but we don't see that sentiment being echoed in our neck of the woods. Councillor Ingham, I've heard you say, what are we saying no to here when encouraging your fellow councillors to vote in favour of an allocation that local people are up in arms about? And I've heard you, Chair, you've said such and such a place must take some development despite the fact that the place you were talking about has seen massive development in the past decade.

00:24:11And these comments have caused real upset for residents who I remind you again do not live in tier 3 settlements we live in unique communities each one with very unique challenges and also having their own very special character and it's our opinion that some of the decisions made around this table in putting this plan together are likely to destroy the special character of some of these communities forever. Now you know that land in East Devon is highly prized by developers so what also concerns us is that it's virtually impossible to see who the directors of some of these companies are and our guess is they're almost certainly not living in the communities they want to build on. So what assurances committee will you give us that the companies you have heard from during this process such as Land Value Alliance offer robust enough layers of transparency as to who will actually profit from the sale of East Devon's land. Do you have sufficient safeguards in place to be utterly confident that none of the councillors around

00:25:18This table or sitting around any other committee table aren't being influenced by them? Now it might sound like a big conspiracy theory but East Devon District Council has had its fair share of controversy over the years and financial incentives can be very powerful motivators we all know that the secret behind secretive behind doors meetings of your own working party in the lead up to your recommendations and the resulting lack of transparency around that part of the process displayed very poor judgment in our view and finally committee in your own public consultation you had more unhappy and dissatisfied constituents by a factor of five one particular site than for any other in the whole of East Devon and I made this same point to you before in the September meeting but this fact was not recorded in the minutes so we would like it put on public record that 370 people told you they were unhappy or dissatisfied with development at this location and to make matters worse The Agenda Pack for September's meeting told your own councillors that officers were enthusiastic about development in this same location.

00:26:34Now, this enthusiasm seems to have stemmed from one of your closed-door meetings mentioned earlier. So, no wonder we all start to feel slightly suspicious about all of your processes. Now, if our responses to your consultation were expressed as a percentage of people living in the entire parish, Rather than just as a percentage of people living in our village, it could explain why you may have concluded that Broadcliffe's residents did not create much of a fuss.

00:27:02Well, we're trying to make you pay attention to us now, in as many ways as we can think of, and probably to the annoyance of all of you. But the fact is, we feel utterly powerless. Was the whole public consultation on sites simply an expensive tick-box exercise? Because how could it be anything else, when you've voted not only to include your most objected-to site, but you've now increased the allocation above what your own officers and the parish council considered would be detrimental?

00:27:39Do you think that makes any sense to your constituents? your plan tells us you will ensure that our towns and villages remain great places to live how are you going to square this circle of contradiction committee how the vision you have set out is one of sustainable development appropriate in scale and character now ask yourselves whether this genuinely applies in each and every case because all of us here are going to be watching you very very carefully to see if you will honor this commitment thank you thank you for those comments dr mason um broadly the comments that are being made in public speaking are for members of committee to consider when it comes to um later on but I I wanted to to pick up on on frankly the accusation that anybody around these tables has a um financial interest in any of these developments. It sounded very much like an accusation to me. I appreciate maybe it wasn't intended as such. To be very clear, participating in a decision in which a member

00:28:58Has a financial interest, without declaring that interest and recusing themselves from the room, I believe I'm right in saying Mr. Hunter is a crime. If anybody here has done that they've broken the law it it with with with respect and and for the record members of the public um have just pointed out from the gallery that it was an observation there was no accusation um with respect if if there's no accusation there then why raise the point um it it you can't you can't necessarily have it both ways um the the folks that sit before you have been elected by you They're accountable to you at the ballot box, and they're responsible by law for declaring their own financial interests.

00:29:54I may disagree with some members who are in this room quite frequently on some occasions. I trust all of them to have made the declarations that they need to make. If anybody has any evidence that that has not been the case, then please come forward with it. But respectfully throwing mud in that way does nothing to help anybody in these discussions. We're here doing our best, and to have that thrown at us is unpleasant.

00:30:31[Passage not reproduced here. It contains allegations or strong criticism of named people or the council, made at the meeting. We don't repeat allegations; you can hear the passage in the council's own recording by playing it from this point.]

00:32:00Relates to their finances are you saying that anything on this application or on this agenda today directly relates to your finances nothing okay so then the other thing that you can say is that some of these things may affect your finances in some way or those of a relative or closer association are you saying that any of the things on this agenda today affect your finances in any way well I don't really know which ones you're going to discuss if I don't understand the agenda if at the particular time you feel that there's something that will affect your finances in or your well-being you must at that stage declare and affects and non-registerable interest if you believe that it will affect your finances and the members of the public believe that it will do so to an extent that your judgment will be clouded if you were making a decision which you're not anyway today then you must declare an effects of prejudicial non-registerable interest and then you must leave the room other than that you don't have anything

00:33:10To declare well I was just going to declare an NRI in respect of what I don't know because I don't know what's coming up do I well at this moment in time then I'd suggest that you can't declare anything can you but if you do feel that you need to in the future when we get to that particular stage please do so please let me know at that stage if you want some further guidance but as things stand at the moment I can't see what exactly it is that you want to declare thank you okay thank you mr hunter thank you Councillor Collins I've forgotten where I was um okay I was about to call duncan so I will call the next speaker um which is uh Councillor Richard granger from otteries st mary good morning Councillor Granger well I'm sorry that I'm going to have to add to the burden that has been so eloquently expressed by colleagues and members of the public.

00:34:28On the 11th of November, we, Ottery Town Council, sent a letter to East Devon District Council, and I will now read it out. Concerns regarding the East Devon Local Plan site's identification and process. Ottery St. Mary Town Council wishes to reiterate the serious concerns expressed in Limston Parish Council's recent letter to East Devon District Council regarding the process of identifying sites for development under the East Devon Local Plan. The Council fully support the views expressed by Limston Parish Council as they reflect our own concerns about the undue pressure this process has placed on local councils, including Otteries and Mary, as well as the negative impact it has had on our communities. Like Limston, our parish has experienced significant frustration with the EDLP consultation process, which has placed a disproportionate burden on councillors.

00:35:31The lack of sufficient notice, the rushed timelines and the absence of adequate time for reflection and meaningful consultation have undermined the effectiveness of the process. Furthermore, the failure of EDDC to engage in a more positive and collaborative manner with smaller councils has left many feeling sidelined and undervalued the council share concerns about this the toll this process has taken on the mental health and well-being of parish and town councillors who are already working under considerable pressure to serve their communities the additional demands of responding to a process that appears to offer little in the way of meaningful consultation or consideration for local opinion have only added to the strain. It is evident that the current planning process has been poorly managed and the communication between EDDC and local councils has been inadequate. The lack of empathy, leadership and understanding shown by EDDC has led to a feeling of frustration and betrayal in smaller communities where the views of local residents appear to be ignored or dismissed. In particular, we share the concern that the relentless pressure

00:36:38To meet government housing targets that's being placed on communities without due regard for the limitations of local infrastructure or the preservation of open spaces. Rather than continue to impose unrealistic targets that damage our towns and villages, we urge EDDC to raise these concerns with the government and advocate for a more realistic approach to development, one that takes into account the capacity of existing infrastructure and protects the character of our communities.

00:37:06The Town Council strongly believes that the EDLP process must be revisited with greater consideration given to local views and a more collaborative approach to planning. We join Limston Parish Council in calling for a genuine review of the process and for more thoughtful support of engagement with the Town and Parish Councils who are on the front line of this issue. And we hope that the EDDC will reflect on the concerns raised both by Otterist Mary and Limston and take immediate steps to address the shortcomings in the current process for the benefit of our communities and the future of East Devon.

00:37:44And we are still waiting for a reply to that letter which was sent on November 11th.

00:37:50Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Granger. As we've had two public speakers, I believe, so far, who've not been able to join us quite yet members do you wish to put uh good morning mr shillito just just one second please um we'll hear from mr shillito in a moment but members do you want to wait for mr sherritt to arrive before we proceed with the rest of the meeting after hearing from mr shillito I do need a steer from committee on this one council indeed it is 40 minutes since the start yes that's right Okay, well, we'll hear from [member of the public], and then we'll see where we are.

00:38:52[member of the public], you're three minutes. Councillors, you've been moving at a phenomenal pace, the hours you've put in. However, while you, the democratic side of East Devon, are able to pull out all the stops, the bureaucracy of East Devon has just not been able to keep up. Emails you're chasing weeks later, the public are completely in the dark about what's going on. When you look on your website, it's out of date, creating the utmost confusion.

00:39:18Seeing these XMF sites, I could not believe some of the decisions that you councillors have made. But when I looked into it, it's not you. It's the rushed information you've been supplied with from the planning department, the errors and omissions. The plans upon which you made these decisions show the land designations, national landscape, listed buildings, even unconfirmed wildlife sites. but omitted the highest designation of all, the European-level designations of SAC and SPA, left off.

00:39:46How can you make an informed decision? For this glaring omission, Matt Dickens essentially said, we can choose what to put on and we chose not to show the internationally important sites. You voted without the knowledge that the Pearl Beds Heath is both a SAC and an SPA and you've put an allocation for a suburb the size of Woodbury next to it. This is the only double-designated site in East Devon.

00:40:08In fact, throughout Devon. Nowhere on Dartmoor or Exmoor is as highly designated for wildlife. In fact, this is the only land-based double-designated site in the whole of the southwest. And you're proposing 700 houses next to it. And the devastating recreational impacts on the ground-nesting birds is well documented. But you were not informed. Nowhere in all of the HELAA paperwork, committee agendas and plans have I seen mention of the SAC and SPA.

00:40:34If you allocate EXMO20, knowing that you're going against international and national regulations and East Devon's own nature recovery strategy, and even contradicts the Chapter 13 policies within this Local Plan. Secondly, the EXMO20 map is wrong. It includes a whole load of houses, a church and a graveyard. East Devon has been alerted to this incorrectness countless times, but nothing was done until after the Working Party meeting and the 3rd of September committee, when you, councillors, made the decision for this site, based on its large, attractive site to accommodate housing and employment and 106, it's now been redrawn, reduced in size by a third.

00:41:14But despite this material change, your decision, based on the incorrect large map, still stands. You, as councillors, were elected to be our voice. Ask why these things have happened and ask yourselves, were you provided with the correct information such that you made an informed sound and defendable decision Natural England have not commented on the EXMO20 site as that consultation was done in the spring before this was a preferred site I asked just one of you to have the conscience to know that this is not right and that similar to Budleigh 01 this site should be allocation should be paused until that consultation response matt dickens said he'll do that if committee asks so please ask for the sake of the ground nesting birds please ask thank you mr shillito um I I take the point that perhaps there was no mention in papers I I think I'd be extremely surprised if anybody in this room wasn't aware of those european designations um and the importance that they have in legislation and for this planning process.

00:42:31Broadly, I'd agree with you. Members of this committee are not ignorant of the issues that we deal with in East Devon. Yeah, no, and I will take that point, and perhaps it should have been mentioned in those papers, But again, members of this committee sit on this committee because we're expected to know part of the role of sitting on this committee is that there's an expectation that actually you have regard to things that are not necessarily what is written down in front of you.

00:43:09Otherwise, what's the point of us being here? No, I didn't know where Ting Tong was. That's correct. I'm going to move us on. Sorry, Geoff. Fine. OK. [member of the public], I've got a couple of questions which might help to drag things out a bit longer at this stage, if you want, because I really would like to know where we're going. Sorry, Councillor Faithfull, what are those questions relevant to?

00:43:49Well, the first part is... Are they relevant to one of the chapters? Yes. Then can we do them when we get to those chapters? This is what I'm trying to sort out. Will we deal with it? Because there's an issue of wording at Tipton. You did say there was a comment saying there's no changes to the sites, but there's an issue with the wording for Tipton, and there's an issue I have with Autry 20 as well.

00:44:16Then we'll deal with that when we get to the relevant chapter, and we will go through chapter by chapter once we've concluded public speaking. The last thing that I wanted to highlight while we hang on for a second to see if [member of the public] is able to join us. We're frequently asked why we don't fight against the targets that are imposed on us by government. We do regularly every opportunity we get.

00:44:45I wanted to make that very clear. If you go to the agenda papers from the 11th of September, just as one example of this, You will see one of the papers in there is our response to the changes that the government proposed to the MPPF. One of the questions that they posed as part of that consultation was, do you have any additional comments on the proposed method for assessing housing needs on the mutant algorithm, as it's known?

00:45:15Our response there, expertly drafted by Mr. Freeman, was we would question the logic of a standard method that pays no regard to the capacity of a place to accommodate growth, either in terms of the environmental constraints in an area and also the capacity of the infrastructure to accommodate it. And we go on. We make those representations more or less verbatim every few months, pretty much whenever we have the opportunity to say something to government.

00:45:46Um in response this is what we get back um and I'll quote here from a bbc news article on the 2nd of september um angela rayner said I've just lost it uh her comment was on uh it being put to her that the vast majority of all local authorities in the country whether run by labor conservative or liberal democrat administrations uh had called the proposed targets that they set out unrealistic and impossible to achieve. Her response to that was we've got a housing crisis in this country and therefore I make no apologies for the mandate that we were given to deliver the homes that people desperately need. That's the brick wall that we find ourselves running up against on a regular basis. If we had more power to decide what and where we build, how much of what, then rest assured, we would be using it. [member of the public], is that your right on time? Your three minutes, please.

00:47:32So I'm just welcome. Thank you. Hello, Chair. Hello, everybody. I wanted to speak a little bit modern chapter five which is about towns and villages um and it wraps in uh where I'm looking at we have decisions to make about housing for the future and I recognize that we have decisions that we have a major town that's been built from scratch over the years we have another major town coming on the on the outskirts of Exeter that is going to obviously come towards our targets but when we're looking at towns and villages I see a distinct kind of contradiction between one part of the plan which talks about our aspirations around climate change and our aspirations around protecting and the well-being of existing residents but at the other hand the decisions that seem to be made around some of these sites in specific to areas where we're talking about protecting heritage buildings or protecting and making sure that we have the infrastructure to go with it at the moment they're just sentences and I feel that maybe this stuff goes on in the background but

00:48:45With the lack of clarity within these things and the lack of detail around facts then it leaves us very much questioning and hence the reason why these sort of things carry on where we are continually dragging and asking you to provide the evidence of why a decision was made so I'll give an example you're proposing to build 142 homes or allocate a space for 142 homes or 100 homes in a historic village in the doomsday book right next to grade one listed national trust buildings but there's nothing in there other than saying we'll do our best to stop there being flooding rather than showing the facts of actually what is going to be the impact of building that so an example would be you build 142 homes you're going to be displacing 14 745 litres of water from the water table by building that's including road utilities and houses on the site that size that has to be passed somewhere now I know you put in place sustainable mitigation but you don't see that at the moment all we're seeing is a line saying

00:49:52I will do our best to stop it and the problem is is that what you're presenting is what feels like lip service to the existing residents whose homes and well-being will be irreparably damaged as a result of building for future people which we do know okay homes and I just think that is a contradiction in terms of where you're saying in one hand we want to look after our existing residents but on the other hand just deal with it and get on with it and maybe the maybe the flood won't come maybe it will come we already know for example town end is already a flood risk zone you cannot get flood insurance on that street we already know that it is lapping up and coming into people's homes in the existing state you know that also when you build on site 29 you will have surface runoff so until you see detailed factual evidence with the maths that can be done that shows how you will mitigate or how anyone will mitigate it so my argument or or plea to you guys

00:50:56Is if you're going to have planners and developers come in at that initial stage we would like to see that you press hard for the real evidence rather than saying oh we'll just do it and we'll just find a way because quite often the way isn't found and you see on the news time and again the devastation that it causes to local people what's going on in Wales and the floods and actually that is contradictory to what we're trying to say about there's no point having a net zero as our target when everyone's houses are underwater it doesn't it just doesn't work so I would really ask for you to put that in place and for that for you guys as as the committee to be given the actual facts as a representation of what those impacts will be when you're displacing 14,000 litres of water from one patch of land to another patch of land and what impact that will have when you have heavy rainstorms and flooding. Thank you. Thank you [member of the public] for those comments. As you've mentioned

00:52:00The example there specifically of flood risk and impacts on drainage and the like that's possibly a good point for me to clarify what we're doing as part of this process. The Local Plan fundamentally is about the principle of development what we what we're saying when we allocate a site in the Local Plan is in principle some building here of within whatever constraints we set out within that policy is okay from a from a strategic perspective the the sort of issues um yourself and and many people have brought up through this process are things that fundamentally as an authority we absolutely are concerned with and do look at in an awful lot of detail but at the next stage of the process when when a planning application comes in when it hits the planning portal and it gets a reference number and it goes out for consultation that's the stage at which we look at that detailed evidence and all of the engineering calculations and all of that because that's the process that's set out in law um it it it may that that may be part of the floor that there are some areas where

00:53:13We do look in in more detail at sites where there are specific designations um specifically around flood flood risk so if it's um flood zone 3b or if it's part of a critical drainage area designation then there are additional steps that we have to take during this process to satisfy ourselves but the majority of the time that sort of detailed analysis comes at the planning stage which is is another process that this authority operates and whether you agree with that configuration I see a lady at the front I'm shaking her head whether you agree with that as the process or not that's the legal framework that we're stuck with we don't we don't have a choice about doing it that way um so I thought it was just I'm I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna move us on because I I don't want to I've I've seen Ottery 20 I live I live in wimple just down the road I I have okay I'm gonna

00:54:50Move us on then uh to consider the remainder of the agenda I I'm I'm sorry sir please can you stop disrupting the the meeting thank you we're going to move then on to the substantive agenda first we're going to hear a report from mr Freeman which will go through all of the papers that are in front of you today members and then as I was saying to Councillor Faithfull a minute ago we're going to go through chapter by chapter um to consider any issues that are arising with that then Mr. Freeman just a moment members we're having some technical challenges we're going to

00:56:18Break for 10 while we sort the tech out so we'll resume at five past 10. Okay thank you members

01:09:35We will pick up now with Councillor Rylance has pulled rank as the chair of the council and wishes to just add two minutes worth. Councillor Rylance. Thank you chair so thank you for calling me early because I actually have to leave so I wanted to speak in a very general fashion obviously because we are not actually discussing specific sites today the first thing I wanted to say was I wanted to pay tribute to colleagues who are sitting on this committee who have sat through eight to ten hour meetings several times a month for the last six months in order to get ahead of the new government housing targets which would impose even more houses on our on our area and make it even more difficult to deliver the allocation we have so as I said in a previous meeting I didn't go into politics to make people's lives worse and so understanding that we absolutely need to be delivering more houses for the natural population growth of our towns and villages and that there are many young people

01:10:33In our towns and villages who are what we call hidden homeless as in they cannot leave home because they cannot afford to go and live anywhere else so they are staying with their parents into their 30s we need to be delivering genuinely affordable houses in our towns and villages in order to permit family groups and family support systems to stay together at the moment what we have in the previous Local Plan is a system where young people are being forgive me for the word but ghettoized into particular communities where practically everybody is young and there is practically no grandparent figure or parent figure for example I mean, Councillor Blakey will know this, for two censuses running, Cranbrook has been 20% under fours.

01:11:16So when people say, where are all these people going to come from, there is a significant chunk of these people who will be living in our area who are not yet born. And what building houses that are genuinely affordable does is it permits people to start their adult lives. What we're doing at the moment is we're keeping young people in a situation where they cannot start their adult lives.

01:11:36They're dependent on their parents. It is an extremely frustrating situation for everybody, for the parents and for the young people, and what we need to be doing is focusing on delivering houses that young people can afford, that they can afford to stay near their family, near their parents and their grandparents as they age, so that everybody can support everybody else. so the principle of building houses in villages should not be in question what what I am concerned about and I know concerns a lot of people is that historically infrastructure has been quite slow in coming ahead alongside these houses so we need to be delivering infrastructure at least contemporaneously with any development that we make anywhere across the district because those are the biggest stresses and And, you know, my inbox is full of emails, which are essentially about the slow delivery of infrastructure.

01:12:26So in considering any allocation at a future date, and I do trust that colleagues later when considering specific allocations will request that conditioning does not make people's lives worse as requested, that we consider the flooding as requested by Duncan Charrot, that exits onto roads are properly considered so they don't make people's lives worse, that school places and doctor surgeries, a proper dialogue takes place with the other infrastructure providers so that we can grow harmoniously as communities.

01:13:03And I would trust colleagues later in the process to abide by all this for every single of these new developments. But I will hope that people will not kick against development because we need it for our natural population growth. But I would also hope that we consider the needs of all the people, both existing and future, including the needs of the very small children who will be appearing in these developments, and that we make these developments work for our local populations.

01:13:30Um and so although we're not discussing specific sites today and I think that must be underlined um we also have to pass this plan it's it's crucial we pass this plan because if we don't then we're back to square one with bigger housing numbers um and finally I mean I'm going to I'm going to slightly pull rank at this point as sheriff council and I would like to pay tribute to all my colleagues who've sat through these enormous meetings at great personal cost actually because some people have had to miss days and days and days of work over the last six months in order to produce a plan that will pass the next stage and go on hopefully.

01:14:10So growing is not an option. We have to grow because we have a growing population. But how we grow is up to us now and going forwards and at future planning meetings and future planning decisions. So thank you very much to colleagues and please help us all make decisions which are rational and calm and deliver the best results for residents.

01:14:34Thank you. And I'm really sorry I have to go now. Okay, thank you, Councillor Rylance. Mr. Freeman, is the tech sorted? I hope so.

01:14:46Thank you, Chair. Good morning, members. No, we were going to proceed with the agenda. I'd prefer to move on with the agenda, to be honest with you, Councillor Ingham. um mr Freeman thank you chair um so moving on to the report uh which relates to the approval of the regulation 19 consultation on the Local Plan um I've pulled together a few slides which I thought might be helpful to illustrate the key points from from the report I wanted to start off with a sort of reminder of sort of how we got here and where we're going um so I wanted to point out we've obviously been on this journey for some time now there was the issues and options consultation back at the start of 2021 in which we set out that we were going to produce a new Local Plan what the main issues were and options for addressing them there was a consultation on that for six weeks and we fed back the responses we had to that through to the committee we then moved on and produced a draft plan the regulation 18 version of the plan which

01:16:03First round consultation at the end of 22 through to early 23 and we had a second round of consultation in the spring of this year we had thousands of responses to those consultations all of which have been summarized and brought through this committee for members to consider and to inform your decision making members will also be aware that over the last um three to six months we've had a series of meetings of this committee to consider site allocations and policies in the plan so everything that's before you today in terms of the site allocations the policies and drafting of the plan you have seen at least once before and commented on and informed and made decisions on we are now at the regulation 19 stage and seeking members agreement for a regulation 19 plan to go out to public consultation the intention is to launch this consultation in January as things stand as members will be aware we've been waiting for the new or our time scales have been affected shall we say by the draft national planning policy framework consultation we had earlier this year

01:17:11Which indicated some substantial changes to the government's planning policy and the housing numbers as Councillor Rylance has alluded to with the potential for our housing numbers to increase by over 200 homes per year if we don't progress the plan under the transitional arrangements which based on the consultation gave us a month from publication of the national planning policy framework to publish a regulation 19 version of the plan I think the current expectation is that the NPPF will come out later this week which will give us potentially a month depending on the transition arrangements that are within that document so we need to be ready and the intention is that we will have that ready to go out within a month going forwards from there members will be aware that you've now resolved to do a two-stage regulation 19 consultation so consultation on the draft plan would be stage one there would then be a consultation uh next spring early summer on the new town uh so this is the master plan work that's ongoing in terms of the

01:18:20Second new community and work on the greater extra transport study that is informing that work and and any other key evidence documents that that are still outstanding at that time with view to then collating all of that feedback and consultation responses and submitting to the planning inspectorate in autumn of next year the timetable obviously gets a little hazy from there because we're in the hands of the planning inspectorate but looking towards public hearings late next year early 26 and adoption perhaps towards the end of 26 so we've been on a long journey already and there's still quite a long way to go um and quite a lot of uh issues still to to resolve in terms of um the new NPPF and and getting this consultation live so just moving through um the report that's before you um we obviously had discussion at previous meeting about the housing monitoring report and the housing situation as has been discussed the allocations in the plan we have have now modelled in terms of a trajectory for their delivery which

01:19:31Is one thing that we need to present as part of the plan this is again an ongoing piece of work but I think this graph does illustrate the issue that I think we were we were discussing to some extent at the previous meeting in relation to the housing monitoring reports about how we get to a where we have a five-year housing and supply at the point of adoption of the plan which is a requirement for the plan to be found sound and you'll see from the graph that our predictions in terms of delivery trajectory in terms of completions of homes over the next five years shows quite a shortfall particularly in 25 26 through to 28 29 and then a substantial uplift because at that point we have the sites that are allocated in the plan coming forward.

01:20:17So fundamentally what we need to do is shift some of what we have in the green part of that graph in the years 29, 30 onwards, forwards into the first five years of the plan through consents. And this illustrates the point I was making last time about how those sites that are now coming through the application process that have been considered as allocations, we now need to try and move some of those forward, assuming those applications are acceptable in their own right and address the detailed issues that have been raised.

01:20:54So I thought it was important to make that point and show that context in terms of where we're going, what we're trying to achieve. So what you've got in front of you is, in the covering report, is a summary of some of the main changes that have been made to the drafting of the plan since you saw the chapters in some of the previous meetings um so you'll see from paragraph 6.4 uh through to um paragraph 6.21 uh we sought to summarize um the responses uh members comments that were made through previous committees on those chapters and the changes that have been made to the plan as a consequence of that um to pick out a couple of key things, particularly in relation to the new community, which I think is one of the most significant changes. You'll see that policy WSO1 now sets out a vision for a new town of at least 10,000 new dwellings. This is to align with the government's new towns programme, which members will be aware relates to new towns of 10,000 homes or more.

01:22:02The intention here is that the plan allocates 8,000, which is what we've said all along we would do but it sets out a vision for for at least 10 000 which would go then beyond this plan period indeed the 8 000 was always going to go beyond this plan period and now that we've extended the plan period to 2042 it's now envisaged that we would deliver around 3 300 homes during the plan period we're then allocating a remaining 4 700 to be delivered beyond that uh and then a vision as say for the total of at least 10 000 which would come forward in in future development plans um in some cases not just the next development plan but the one beyond that um because I think it takes to uh about 2055 to build out the 8 000 uh that are proposed to be allocated um and linked to that we've been doing some further work with uh consultants and solicitors who've been helping to advise us in terms of new community and uh the the government's new

01:23:04Town's program in terms of the text of the policy that seeks to allocate the new community and so there are some further tweaks to what's within the agenda that's before you today that I just want to talk you through. The first of those is a further amendment to policy WSO1 which relates to stewardship so this will be a matter close to Councillor Blakey's heart I'm sure at Cranbrook where these have been issues and has led to action from the town council there.

01:23:35So the intention here is to add these words to the policy that's in the printed text about establishing a robust and sustainable new town-wide stewardship vehicle and governance early on in the planning and delivery process. This would be done through a stewardship statement and the wording goes on to talk about details that would be included in that. But this is about addressing issues about stewardship of assets from early on in the development.

01:24:06This is, again, one of the lessons from Cranbrook, where assets such as open spaces and community facilities were originally to be put into a management company and covered in an estate rent charge. that creates unnecessary costs and uncertainty for the community and doesn't give them the ownership of those assets in terms of decision-making as well. So this is about ensuring we have an appropriate, robust and sustainable stewardship vehicle from the early days of a new community and hopefully don't have the situation that we've had at Cranbrook where the community have subsequently stepped in and taken on responsibility for those assets through the town council and so I'd ask members to consider the wording on on the screen there as part of a recommended change to policy wso1 a further change as well to the printed pages is I'm now recommending an additional policy be added into the plan as well so this is a policy specifically about phased developments So, again, this comes out of discussions with consultants and solicitors, particularly in regards to the new community,

01:25:29But I think this is relevant to a number of large-scale developments that are in the plan. And it's about ensuring the phased delivery of infrastructure and services and a joined-up approach between different phases of developments. So on large-scale developments, we quite regularly see these developments broken down into phases or parcels where different developers are delivering different parts of that development and this can lead to issues in terms of joining up things like pedestrian routes cycling and vehicle access between the different parcels developers don't necessarily want to play ball with one another and so can make life difficult for each other by if not appropriately controlled and and the same in terms of services and delivery of electricity water sewage broadband and district heating networks and ensuring that they build these services and infrastructure up to the boundaries of the site so that the adjoining developer can readily access and connect into those without us getting into situations of ransom strips and similar arrangements that lead to delays in the delivery of development and unnecessary expense or indeed retrofitting where

01:26:40We end up with the road being dug up that was only laid months earlier on the adjoining phase. So, I'd ask members to consider the wording that's on the screen as an additional policy to be added into the plan that seeks to address those issues. I appreciate we may need to come back to that text later on. The other thing I wanted to pick up on that's covered in the report is the two sites that through your deliberation on allocations were delegated to myself in consultation with the chair to resolve in terms of their inclusion in the plan, or rather the form in which they are included in the plan.

01:27:28And one of these is Budl_01, a site at Budleigh-Salterton, which members will recall lies within the national landscape and within a green wedge that seeks to separate Budleigh-Salterton from Knoll Village. So the discussion at the time about this site was that the least sensitive part of the site was the north-eastern corner of the site, which was sort of this. hopefully you can see on the screen this sort of corner of the site members agreed to allocate a part of the site which was to be agreed under delegated powers for up to 50 homes through further discussions with the site owner and their agents this is a plan that we were presented with that sought to address those issues and you've heard at previous meetings from the agent yesin john including at your previous meeting and I think he circulated this plan uh to you all uh before that meeting um so you you you'll see from the text in the report that um this doesn't really follow what we had in mind I don't think as a committee members may

01:28:41May recall that this was always um a site that we or as late we haven't been recommending for allocation I think at the time of the draft plan we had it as a second choice site and then through further consideration uh we withdrew from that position and weren't recommending its allocation but the committee felt that but they should be taking more development uh that than it was um and this site was was put forward as a safer 50 homes uh we have concerns as officers in terms of the extent of land that's that's being taken here I think there are 53 homes on the plan but across three fields rather than the one that was being discussed at the meeting and we have quite strong concerns as officers about the landscape impact of this particularly looking across from a footpath close to the coast by the golf course where you look across at the same level as this site and look into this area which currently creates quite a clear visual separation between Budleigh Salterton and the village of Knoll we feel the extent of this

01:29:45Starts to erode that arrangement impinges on the landscape and the national landscape and would be quite hard to justify it as an allocation in the context of it being development in the national landscape where we believe we can meet the housing numbers without needing to allocate this site. I think part of the reason why this site ends up as proposed on here, as I pointed out when this was previously being considered, that in order to access this part of the site, the only way to access is it is through a road off bedlands lane at this end so you end up running a road right the way through the site in order to access that because it cannot be accessed from dark lane I think it is down here and so in order to make that viable and deliverable you obviously need some frontage development along that road I think that's been stretched in terms of what's being proposed here and the extent of development in these two fields But our recommendation is that we do not proceed with an allocation at Budl_01, and that is not included in the Regulation 19 plan.

01:30:59The other site that was delegated was Honey 18, land at Kings Road, Honiton. Members may recall the issue here was about gaining access onto the Axminster Road, I think it is at that point, or Kings Road. I think it changes just across the frontage of the site. Our members resolved effectively to allocate this site for up to 136 dwellings in the event that a suitable access could be formed.

01:31:29We've had further discussions with national highways, it being a classified road. Their view is effectively that they believe an access can be created, but only by moving the national speed limit out, further out of the settlement, so that there's a 30 mile an hour speed limit across the frontage of this site that would obviously reduce the visibility displays that would be needed. Indications from discussions with them are that they would be content with that in principle as long as the police are comfortable with the 30 mile an hour speed limit in that location and discussions with the police have confirmed that they would be happy with that.

01:32:12So we feel we have sufficient comfort now to come to the view that access can be achieved in this location and the site can be included within the plan. So the proposal is that we... Well, this one actually doesn't need a resolution from the committee because it was delegated to myself in consultation with the chair to include it. So really I'm updating members on the position that this one is intended to be included within the Regulation 19 version of the plan.

01:32:44And finally, a site that members did agree to allocate is Otto 02 at Otterton. Apologies, the plan on the left-hand side of the screen is quite busy, but it does illustrate the issue with this site. So this was a site that the committee agreed to allocate for up to eight dwellings, contrary to officers' advice. and the issue that that's raised is in terms of the strategic flood risk assessment as you may remember from discussions in other locations about the sites that went through the second stage of the strategic flood risk assessment which is required for sites at areas at high flood risk or within critical drainage areas we hadn't put Otto O2 through that that process because it wasn't a site that as officers we were recommending for allocation we've now spoken to consultants about that and we're talking about a bill of over 10 000 pounds to do that work for a site of only eight dwellings and as a committee you have subsequently resolved to include that site within the settlement boundary of otterton so actually allocating the site achieves

01:33:53Relatively little because it would be within the settlement boundary where the principle of development would be acceptable anyway so rather than doing that additional work my recommendation is that we actually omit Otto O2 as an allocation within the plan and just accept that it can come forward anyway because it will be within the settlement boundary and the principle would be acceptable. So where does that leave us in terms of housing numbers?

01:34:20I hear you cry. In terms of the total allocations proposed, you can see this is an update of the table that came to you a couple of meetings ago. So, effectively, our target plus 10% buffer for the plan 2024 to 2042 was 22,539 homes. With the emission of Budl_01 and Otto 02, we would have allocations amounting to, in addition to the windfall projections and commitments on the table, we'd have a total amounted to 22,536 leaving us three homes shy of the plan requirement plus 10% which I think is a reasonable position to move forward and present for examination so just turning to the recommendations in the report as a result of all of this there are some slight amendments particularly to recommendation one within the report which I've highlighted in red so you see recommendation one I'm now proposing would read that Strategic Planning Committee approved the publication draft of the plan as appended to this report with the addition of the proposed text to cover stewardship arrangements as part of strategic policy wso1 and the proposed additional policy on phase development delegated authority to be given

01:35:47For the assistant director planning strategy and development management in consultation with the chair to make adjustments to tidy up and refine Local Plan text wording to ensure consistency of approach through the plan edit down over long text and correct typographical errors um some of you have already pointed out the odd typo and spelling mistake we have read through the plan on goodness knows how many occasions already but inevitably in a document of this size there are still going to be uh small typographical errors and things that need to be corrected so important that we have delegated authority to do that I should also point out that the plan you have is is fundamentally just the text we haven't done much in the way of formatting yet so the intention is to do some formatting and beautifying of the document before it goes out to consultation um there simply hasn't been time to complete that part of the process as yet um the remaining recommendations uh remain as as in the report uh so I won't read those out

01:36:46And no doubt we will come to those in due course, but they do include, as I've mentioned, resolving not to allocate Bottle 01 or Otto 02, and a fundamentally seeking members' agreement to commence consultation on the plan, as set out in the report.

01:37:06Thank you very much, Chair. Okay, thank you, Mr Freeman. How can you possibly already have a question, Councillor Jung? so um before before I before I come to to Councillor Jung for questions then um just a brief comment on how we're going to do this logistically today um members will be aware the plan is broken down into individual chapters uh the agenda reflects a split in the day so for this morning session uh before two o'clock we will be going through chapters one through five to consider any comments that members have and then for the afternoon session we'll start with a short public speaking session there and then we'll go through the remaining chapters 6 through to 18 and also the two appendices apparently so hopefully that makes sense the five recommendations that you have the two on specific sites we will consider when we get to chapter 5 to which they are relevant and the other three which consider the whole plan we will take at the end of the session once we've been through all of the chapters so if that

01:38:18Makes sense to everyone I see no objections so Councillor Jung your question what's it relevant to please two questions first question is as I read it is it correct that without submitting the new Local Plan we haven't got the ability for a stepped increase in housing numbers now basically if we don't present a new Local Plan we haven't got this ability of doing this stepped increase and therefore then we can demonstrate a five-year land supply so mr. Freeman I think I'm right in saying the stepped increase is to get us through examination and having a sound plan the normal five-year housing land supply requirements still apply when it comes to development management and paragraph 11d yes that's right so there's two slightly different things here one is sort of the five-year housing land supply position which requires consents so allocations don't automatically mean consents but obviously if you allocate a site it then encourages developers to make an application and for those to come in so it's a step on the journey to that site being

01:39:34Delivered which is important in terms of bolstering our housing and supply position but as I said when I had the trajectory on on on the screen we need to turn some of those allocations which are proposed in the plan into permissions earlier to bank those permissions and bolster our housing and supply position in terms of the the trajectory and perhaps go back to on the screen we are exploring this issue around the step trajectory to help with this issue and potentially saying that in the early years of the plan we would only be aiming to deliver perhaps 800 homes a year and then proportionately increase the latter years of the plan. This is an argument that's been used by other authorities in terms of their trajectories being presented at examination and we think that there is a strong case for doing that in this circumstance particularly because we have the second new community coming forward in the districts where obviously we are going to see a step up in delivery when uh they break ground at

01:40:34That development and and home start being delivered there um so we're exploring that option that haven't got that step on on the trajectory as yet because we're still working on on on that and how that would work and obviously this is an ever-evolving picture as as applications come in and consents are given so we need to see where we get to I think in an ideal world we would see those columns uh in 25 26 through to 28 29 increasing through consents alongside potentially considering this this step trajectory option as well was that both of your questions Councillor Jung or um yeah that answers the first question which basically um would be um we won't be um pushed by developers uh claiming that we haven't got a five-year land supply when we have the new plan publish that's my main concern the other question was it can wait until we discuss the public one thank you okay thank you Councillor Jung and before I come to I think Councillor Jess Bailey had another general question but before I

01:41:47Do that I've been told off by my vice chair because I forgot to come back to councillors Levine and ledger who joined us slightly late to check whether they had any declarations the only declaration I have chair is that if anybody is offering cake I forfeited two slices for being late okay thank you Councillor Levine Councillor Ledger none that I'm aware of chair um there was a member of the public that I I know but I don't know whether that's a declaration that I would have to make. Mr. Hunter is shaking his head.

01:42:34No, okay. All right. Thank you very much. And thank you, Vice Chair, for reminding me. Councillor Jess Bailey, any other general questions before we come to Chapter 1?

01:42:46Thank you. It is a general question. What are we going to be publishing apart from the plan when we go out to consultation will we be publishing all of our evidence base that we've been um working on since we did the last regulation 18 consultation so that's my first general question and my second general question is I'm not clear and maybe I've missed it where the actual the the wider plans are so not the town or village specific plans but the more general plans that show things like the green wedges and other spatial policies um future yes so we will be um we're putting together an evidence library which would go uh live at the same time as the consultation and have links uh to all of that obviously a lot of that's on the website already but we'll try and organize that in an easy to access way alongside the consultation materials in terms of the plans I should have mentioned we did republish the agenda on friday I think it was with um maps of of the main settlements um which are uh on the website um but what we're working

01:43:57Towards is an interactive map so that people can interactively access a map of any part of the district and see all of the relevant boundaries and everything that's that's in the plan so that will be available to go live with the consultation um if members want to see where we've we've got to with that mr dickens does have access and we can show that to two members uh now or later in the meeting if members wish thank you yeah I've seen the maps for the um uh the settlements but so for instance you can see the edge of a green wedge but you can't actually see the extent of it because we've only so I talking in terms of western lottery you can see it on the edge but you can't see the wider the full extent of it um so and that does slightly concern me that um yeah yeah I think we do need to see that um and and we'll be happy with that so I don't know how that can be whether we can look at it in a minute or later on or sometime so through you chair um

01:45:28Essentially as I see it uh apologies we weren't able to have sort of an overall policies map um as I say I think is better presented in an interactive way and that's what we've been working towards uh so we can demonstrate that for you if if members want to see uh that at this point um but the boundaries are effectively what you've agreed through the process of the the previous meeting so the interactive map just brings everything together into one place uh with a series of layers that people can turn on or off depending on what they wish to view um so I'm in your hands committee if you want uh we can we can put that live I think mr dickens is is ready to share that if if you wish and we can zoom into any location and show you just what that looks like so you can have comfort that that's as as agreed in fact it's live on the screen now I think that's Ottery st mary isn't it matt that's very nice uh well I shouldn't say

01:46:31Nice that's I'll appreciate seeing it for west hill but I'm also an Ottery but also there's all the other ones and so I just want to make sure that as a committee you know not just I'm happy but everybody's happy because it is a really important plan and I don't know how we do that so um mr Freeman can you remind me which chapter the green wedges are in um off the top of my head and I stand to be corrected by mr dickens I think they're in special strategy mr dickens any ideas my suggestion will be that when we get to that chapter we go through each of the green wedges um if that's of concern uh it's policy ol05 which is chapter 12 our outstanding landscape um so my suggestion would be we can go through those when we get to that chapter if that's okay with you and committee I hear no objections so if and I don't know um Councillor Olive whether there's other policies that need to be looked at on that

01:47:45Kind of not just within the settlements but other other policies that are pan district if that's the correct um rather than specifically to settlements so we'll adopt the same approach as we go through and identify anything that we need to look at we'll do that um so thank you for highlighting that issue Councillor Bailey Councillor Ledger you're waving your hand around a minute ago it's just to ask do we have to declare interests on specific sites today or is it high enough level that we can we don't have to yes please yes we've already discussed the sites previously so it's just more high and looking at the report itself yeah okay thank you mr. hunter and can we perhaps advise you to put the brakes on your table so you don't go flying we wouldn't we wouldn't want health and safety paying us a visit that that breaks not on down there that that one's that one's still not on Damien you need to push it more right we'll come to chapter one while Damien sorts his table breaks out the introduction

01:49:15To the plan does anybody have anything to say about the introduction my only observation is that the map needs updating to say national landscapes rather than AOMB and also I just wanted to check mr Freeman um point 1.4 says we'll add plan policies whether they apply to Cranbrook or not but that that's not yet been done does that need to be reflected in the delegated authority in recommendation one because it's not already I uh as you say I took that as being part of the tidying up and refining the Local Plan text that's referred to in recommendation one um but if members want to make specific reference to that happy for that to be Mr. Hunter, are you satisfied that the delegated authority is broad enough to cover that point?

01:50:11Okay, fine. I had nothing else to say about Chapter 1 then. Any other members? No? Okay, we come then to Chapter 2, the Vision. Members, any comments? I think we've discussed this in some detail previously, but you never know. No? Okay, then Chapter 3, the Spatial Strategy. Members. Councillor Bailey jess bailey can we go to I'm looking at I think it's in chapter three it's tricky isn't it um page 25 and the is this the right time to talk about the numbers in the um chart if it's in chapter three I think it's in chapter three um it looks to be in chapter three to me yes okay good so I looking at the west hill numbers um the total housing requirement is 70 but I don't think that that's correct so when we're saying all known it is defined as all known supply sources completions commitments and dpd allocations so we know there's allocated one site for 30 ones at planning and 34 has been rejected and there's no other allocations so I I think that should be

01:51:40Less than 60 and certainly not 70 and so you chair all I can do is take that away and check because I don't know off the top of my head exactly how that number's been made up but we can certainly check thank you on that okay thank you Councillor Bailey um an apologies to members outside of committee I forgot to come to you first Councillor Faithfull thank you chair well I wasn't exactly sure if this is where I was supposed to be putting in the comment anyway um because one of my questions or subjects was the site it relates to um or 320 on the edge of fennerton um I did quest well in my own mind anyway question the there was a comment earlier on in the process suggesting that Fennetton is larger than West Hill I don't know where that came from because it's quite clear it isn't and it was suggested at the parish's own public meeting that they seem to have taken the house numbers for Fennetton from the whole ward that

01:52:58Would be Fennett and Buckrell and Gittisham to get the high numbers because they do leaflet drops around the parish and they're suggesting that their parish total is under 800 houses and yet we've given a figure of something 1,200 or something which is partly why I think isn't that why we've been giving out so many houses to Fennett and because it's suggested to be a larger community than it actually is um and this is where um I mean we have we've got no number for r320 I don't recognize that but it is the fact that that site is going to push that number they've already got something like 130 I think 129 or something um so if we develop out r320 it's going to be enormous increase it's far bigger than the rest of the community and you seem to have got a number of houses for Feniton, which is incorrect, I think.

01:53:58So I'm not sure where that number appears in the plan, if at all, but we can leave that with Mr. Freeman to check and make sure that any numbers are correct with regard to the total number of houses at Feniton. insofar as the point on the allocation the decisions have been made on the allocation so we're not, I don't think constitutionally other than the ones where circumstances have changed and officers have brought a different recommendation I don't think we can revisit those individual decisions constitutionally even if we wanted to and even if we could that would be chapter 5 not chapter 3 so thank you for the point about the numbers at Feniton Mr. Freeman will check those um but otherwise we'll move on I'm not sure who was first so I'm going to go with Councillor Ingham as you like whatever points you've got to make we're not coming to the recommendations until the the end of the day we're just going through the chapters in that if you look at our vision 1.4

01:55:11On page 94 and what that says about a second new town that's quite different from when we just get into chapter 3 SP01 item B so in a vision written by the members do you remember we did that, the members did that they said the second new town is of primary importance, as it says in 1.4. But we get to SP01 not written by councillors. It says promoting the most significant development levels at the principal centre of Exmouth. So already, having created a vision which we did first of all, SP01 doesn't follow that vision.

01:56:05That's my interpretation uh thank you chair um well I'd point out spo1 has the west end of the district as the highest tier and refers to including a further new town as a and then what we've done subsequent to previous discussions we've created a separate level for Exmouth as the principal center which I think was feedback from a previous meeting was that um Exmouth had previously been included in with the main centres of Exmouth, Honolulu, St. Mary's, Seaton and Sidmouth and members asked for Exmouth to have its own level within that policy so that's what we've done but it still sits below the West End and the New Town Is the issue perhaps that that should say the most significant development levels in existing settlements?

01:57:01Is that the point you're picking up on there Councillor Ian? I don't know what this is saying microphone is right you know one contradicts the other what what is it I don't see it as contradictory I think what we're saying is with at a we're focusing new development at the west end of the district and then it goes on to expand that that includes the new town ongoing development at Cranbrook and other strategic developments close to Exeter and then we're saying promoting the most significant development levels at the principal center of Exmouth as the chair says if if members feel that that's um I think we're referring to the most significant development at existing settlements as the chair says we could amend the wording to make that clearer um but that's what we mean um yes which I understood to be in accordance with members wishes I I think maybe we'll take that suggested change in wording a way um an action that just clarified that it's at existing settlements.

01:58:13Councillor Jung. Yeah, in 1.6 on page 94, it's written modest sensitivity plan development, or do you mean it's sensitivity plan development that will be modest? Quite a difference in description. I see we're back in Chapter 2. I do apologise, but I'm going by page numbers. okay it's page 15 of appendix 1 rather than of the whole pack point 1.6 in chapter 2 so what do you think that sentence should say Jeff I think what

01:59:22You mean now it is simply sensitively planned development so I would suggest that tentatively planned development that will be modest the modest sensitivity I think I think we've got good I think we might be splitting hairs here slightly against the young but but mr. Freeman can make a note of that point and we'll clarify the wording afterwards that's fine yeah if there are any other and with respect Councillor Jung minor issues with wording please write them down and email them and we'll pick them up after rather than needing to spend time today talking about them. Councillor Jung was it okay coming back to chapter three then any further comments on the spatial strategy chapter that's chapter three Jeff and you have a different set of page numbers to me so I can't help you okay we come then to chapter four when I get to it in a moment which is development at the west end members comments Councillor Ingham I want to take you back to what Councillor Ryan's was saying um it's quite interesting I think she was

02:01:07Accurate in what she tried to capture people's aspirations in East Devon and what we should try and do my concern is that we're being led to adopt certain strategies policies that are misguided because Councillor Ryland's pointed out the importance of supporting new and affordable homes for next generations which I believe she's absolutely right in saying especially in our second new town in very close proximity to five different work hubs, I'll call them that expression, but you know what I mean.

02:01:56Whereas we've been told recently that statistics say that we don't want these small homes specifically for they aren't of primary importance we want bigger homes and that's what the statistics are telling us I believe that's a misinterpretation of the statistics I think Councillor Rylance is right and that our primary aim should be to deliver as close as we possibly can to affordable homes and as many of them as possible so we can improve the well-being and working status for future generations in East Devon and where we're all dead and gone even you Todd even when you've gone as well it's very important for us to do that so I'm just warning you that we have to be very careful about how we move forward Councillor Ryland mentioned about perhaps encouraging the wrong type of development wrong type of developers it's very difficult to control that but what we can do is in our policies be very careful that we're not swayed by misinterpretation of statistical evidence because we assume that once that assumption is made it's correct

02:03:33And I'm not sure it is so I thank Councillor Rylance for bringing that issue up Okay, thank you Councillor Ingham I have Councillors Jung then Ledger then Fernley No, not Councillor Jung Councillor Ledger Thanks Chair Just under strategic policy WSO1 it talks about 35% affordable housing my question is within the Cranbrook plan we've actually split that out to say the actual percentages of types of affordables and it's whether the the committee it's just a discussion point whether we want to actually list our aspirations now in that to that level of detail or are we happy and content with 35% I know that with even self builds as well I think six percent in Cranbrook or four percent one of the to so there's that question and then with regards to densities we've said about high intensity within the town centre site averages around 45 do we want to list on the peripheries of the the new town to that be less less so even though so as we get out from the centre it becomes less and less dense so

02:04:58That um we're building how our aspirations are or are we content with just saying it's it's dense in the center everywhere else is 45 and then that can go all the way to the edge of uh of the new settlement it's just those two points chair um through your chair so in terms of the affordable housing um the the mix of tenure types uh is set out in policies in the housing chapter of the plan what we sought to do with the um the policy on the new community is keep the scope of that policy to things that are specific to the new town and where there are policies that are district-wide in terms of for example the mix of affordable housing which we will want not just at the new community but on all sites in the district the policy within the housing chapter will apply universally because the plan has to be read as a whole so that's why it's not specifically stated in the policy for the new town but the policy will come on today and the

02:05:57Housing chapter will apply there as it will everywhere else in terms of mix of affordable housing in terms of densities there's a balance here between setting principles which is what we're doing in terms of an allocation and what will come through the master plan which will need to set out more specific areas in terms of density and how those densities actually manifest themselves on the ground which will be another level of detail and then the planning applications themselves which will obviously set that uh so the way I saw is in the policy we're setting the sort of principle of of uh site-wide densities uh higher densities at key locations like the town center neighborhood centers key destinations and transport hubs naturally the density would tail off towards towards the edges of the site but equally at this stage I think until we've done the master planning we don't know which edges where you'll have things like SANGs for example where you'll naturally be tailing off into a rural area or where potentially there might be further

02:07:02Phases of development where it might not be quite so important for the densities to tail off and that needs to come through the master planning process so I think that's a level of detail we don't need to put in the policy at this stage that will come forward through the master plan as work progresses and then we need obviously to link the master plan back to this policy ultimately so that there's that tie-in and that master plan has status to then control what's coming through the applications but it's part of the complexities of this kind of two-stage process because we don't have the master plan yet Councillor Fernley then Councillor Jung Thank you, Chair. I welcome that we are considering employment and have allocations, reasonable sizes for allocations in the West End, because we have got reasonably good roads, communication, green travel.

02:07:57We want to have the working places close to where people are living and we've got this rush of young people and new families in Tithe Barn, Cranbrook and so it's vitally important that we've got really good jobs for them. I feel a bit uncomfortable about signing off plans where we haven't got numbers in so sp04 um the the site's allocated in this plan not at new communities and it said xxx hectares and further down there's xxx and the total is xxx um I just feel a bit uncomfortable that we have to vote on this when we haven't actually got the figures in there um through

02:09:08Chair obviously um the site is built 2020-2024 is a is a fact so we we obviously need to to populate that um but it's not something that's going to to change it's it's a statement of fact in terms of site allocated in this plan I think that's just a case of totting up the totals elsewhere so it's nothing that's actually changed it's just tossing up the totals of uh the sites allocated in the plan I'm not actually sure why that's not been populated thinking about it because we obviously do know the total um some simple maths I could could populate that uh so apologies that's not populated but it will obviously be the sum of of all the the employment sites allocated in the plan that are listed elsewhere okay I'm going to come because again I forgot to go outside committee first to Councillor Roy collins thank you chair Exeter airport a few meetings back derek gent was here speaking about Exeter airport the sign about the runway is far too short that modern

02:10:16Planes can't land there and it was fuel inefficient and all the rest of it well some years ago I was talking to Derek Pyle he used to own Teesbier farm and he told me back then that part of the farm was needed to build a new runway for Exeter airport is there any provision in these plans to protect land so that a new runway could be built for Exeter Airport?

02:10:47Thank you. No. That's a nice, easy question. There isn't any provision to protect land for a new runway. Well, should you not be making provision? I'm going to come to Mr Freeman on that one. Should we be making provision for a... Do you mean a second runway or a replacement runway? Well, probably a replacement or extension. I don't know Exeter Airport, to be honest. Mr Freeman, do we need to make provision for an extension to the runway at Exeter Airport?

02:11:18I'm not aware of any need to do so. And I'm not aware that we've had any correspondence from the airport requesting that we do anything like that. I'm looking to [member of the public] in case he knows of any different. So I'm not aware that we've been given any information to suggest that there's a need to do that or that we should be doing that through this plan. So no, it hasn't been part of our thinking.

02:11:42Okay, thank you, Mr. Freeman. Councillor Jung. Just on the point of the airport, I understood that the runway was sufficient for the requirements by civil aviation. There was a second runway, which hasn't been used since the Second World War. Regarding Chapter 4, I think we're on. I still find it awkward that we are not defining the West End, it's still too woolly, and developers keep saying to me, ah, but so-and-so is in the West End, and I point out, no, it's not, and they say, well, where's the map?

02:12:29So we've got maps of pretty well everything, but for such a key location as the West End, we haven't got a map. I find that rather strange. So, Mr. Freeman, we had asked for one, and there is commentary about this in the covering report. Do you want to talk us through officers' thinking about why you've rebelled against committee in this instance? um I wasn't deliberately rebelling chair um I think it was my recollection was there was called for sort of clarity about what we were referring to as the west end we've we've kind of sought to do that through text rather than a plan because I think it's it's quite challenging to draw a line on a plan to actually define uh well perhaps I should get you a pen and paper you can do that for us because it's I don't think it's a straight boundary to be able to say on that field boundary that's the west end that side it's not the west end it's a more fluid boundary than that a bit more of a woolly boundary

02:13:49Than that if members feel that that's important then we could have a go at doing that but I think we've struggled to um do that I think it's um I think it's reasonably clear in in the text where we're referring to and there are specific sites that we've identified as being within the west end which helps to define what we mean by the west end um I don't I don't think the existing Local Plan actually puts a line on a on a map in terms of that um and I think the phrase kind of originates from us from the structure plan if I recall which didn't either so it's never been defined in terms of a line on a map and I question the need to do so if if we're clear that we're we're talking about an approximate area and specific sites that constitute that area in the plan um but uh over over to members if if if you feel differently thank you mr Freeman um I get the distinct impression we have encountered a rabbit hole on this particular issue so let us go down it with

02:15:02Aplomb Councillor Brian Bailey. A long time since I've been able to fit in a rabbit hole Jack but I look forward to the day thank you I would suggest that the natural boundary for the West End would be anything to the west of the boundary of the Pebblebed Heath which would be Woodbury, Lympstone, Exton Exton and Budleigh-Salterton which are all on the map below the Pebblebed Heath so there's your boundary if I may be so boldly suggest that I don't know what you would think about that thank you isn't Budleigh-Salterton to the east of the western end of the Pebblebed Heath either way we come on to Councillor Fernie you have already spoken on this chapter so I'm going to give you a stern glaze and tell you to be quick please well now now my understanding of the West End is completely different to what I thought it was before things I thought I lived in it I would have thought you could have I mean doesn't have to have a boundary as in like a carefully drawn line can it just not

02:16:09Have a shaded sort of area I would question what the point of a shaded area that doesn't have a hard edge in planning policy is um Councillor Ingham did you want to dig us further into this no I don't I think it's a bad idea I'm with mr Freeman on this one so but what I did want to do is come back on what Councillor Ledger was saying um with um affordable housing it's so important I believe we do as much as possible rather than tiptoe through gray areas um let's face it that if we set a target and you won't like this but to consider if we set a target of 70 percent mixed tenure right that would mean uh we would hit uh our affordable housing needs a lot earlier so in actual fact you could then argue well we don't need to supply say a thousand houses we can reduce that by 20 because what we actually need um the affordable houses are being built and the problem is if we don't set high targets for affordable housing and go up instead

02:17:33Of um out you know in um area or footprint um if we fail to do that at some stage we're going to run out of the West End, wherever that land is, wherever you draw that boundary, because we'll have built too many of the houses we don't actually need, but government want, and that will then mean you're forced into building in the AONBs, I can't remember what it is, National Landscapes. You'll be forced to do that because you'll have exhausted your land supply with the wrong houses. And we'll have more of what we've got, which is an ageing demographic and not young people working in the area providing enough in taxes to accommodate those who have retired. I think what Councillor Ledger has suggested is really important and we're not doing enough.

02:18:39Okay so I'm I'm sensing there is going to be a discussion about that affordable housing policy um when we get to that in where is it hn02 I've lost hn02 in chapter eight so maybe we we can visit that when we get to the affordable housing section does anybody have any further comments specifically on things that are in chapter four Councillor Ledger I'm just coming back to but really responding on the feedback from Ed Freeman, and it's just asking a question of knowing the demographic that we've already got within our new settlement of Cranbrook, do we want to make changes to, for instance, the affordable housing make-up, so that we're repeating the same kind of demographic within Cranbrook, that we are looking at 35% affordable.

02:19:37Are we looking to increase the amount of social housing in that it's the the social housing mix within that I think is really key and it's just whether we define that as separate to the rest of the district um it's it's a question more than more than anything do we want to define separate requirements for the new settlement mr Freeman well future I I think council ledger's right if we're going for a different requirement in terms of tenure mix we would need to state it in the policy for for the new town but I think we have to work on the evidence that we have fundamentally which is about district-wide housing needs and local housing needs assessments that give us that the need for district-wide is not specific to the new town location which we would need to justify going for something different there um and also there's the viability issues and the viability evidence you've heard at previous meetings that suggests uh that is has modeled out the percentage of affordable housing the impacts of different 10-year mix which is how

02:20:46We've arrived at the mix that's currently in the policies um so there's there's limited scope from the evidence we've got I think to deviate from that the other thing I'd say in terms of the new community is to some extent there's also this issue about the delivery vehicle and how the new community is delivered because those viability calculations are obviously based on a traditional delivery model whereas if we were delivering the new community through a different delivery model whereby I don't know if a you know a um locally led development corporation or something was set up and we were in a position where we were given powers by government to acquire land at a zero scheme value or something then there would the viability model would completely alter and there may be scope to deliver higher levels of affordable housing um but we don't know whether not that will be the case at this point in time so there's an element of uncertainty in some of these things with the new community because of the develop the delivery model the master plan and

02:21:46Things like that that might potentially need to be revisited so I've I've and I suspect this might be the point that Councillor Ledger is about to make policy hno2 which um for members is in chapter eight of appendix one has a separate line for the affordable housing percentage and breakdown in the new community which it says is still to be determined through viability work um the master planning exercise etc which will come to the second regulation 19 consultation um so I think Councillor Ledger's point here that actually we may well have different requirements I actually the policy in chapter 4 wso1 maybe needs to be amended to say xx percentage because it's still to be determined yes I take your point share there is a contradiction there um so yeah I mean certainly we we could change that to an xx and say it's to be determined and and then consult on that through the second phase, the Reg 19 consultation, based on any further information we have at that time.

02:22:53If members are more comfortable with that. I think that possibly makes sense from the discussion. Good spot. Councillor Ledger, thank you. Councillor Blakey.

02:23:19Thank you, Chair. Two very small points. Just referring to what Councillor Ledger has talked about with regard to provision of affordable houses. One of the great successes of Cranbrook, and dare I say this in the face of what Councillor Ryland has referred to as ghettoisation of the younger families, one of the great successes has been the creation of dwellings that younger people have been able to afford to buy.

02:23:53And admittedly, a lot of that was backed up by the previous government's assistance schemes. But that has enabled an awful lot of people to buy into properties they could not have otherwise had a hope of doing. And so that type of approach, I think, would be appropriate for the new town, assuming that the governance model enables us to do it. And I'm sure we'll make sure that it does.

02:24:23And the only other thing I was going to suggest as far as the west end is concerned surely it's anything west of the boundaries with the national landscapes um you hardly need to define it beyond that um controversial perhaps discuss the west end grows by the day um or by the minute in this case um okay thank you Councillor Blakey um I hear no specific suggestions for amendments there so I'm going to move swiftly on uh to Councillor I know Councillor Brian bailey thank you very much I'm considering listening carefully to what everybody's saying and people keep saying affordable housing unfortunately it's not happening we're not getting the amount of affordable houses in the area of east heaven that we actually need and I would like to suggest that we'd do for more social rent and social housing for rent because young people are in a situation so I can only with with apologies brian I'm going to stop you there because affordable housing is in a different chapter um so if it's okay with you can we come back to that issue please because

02:25:36I'm going to apologize for being ahead of the curve it's all right don't don't worry it's all right we'd rather we'd rather people were ahead of the curve than behind it certainly Okay, are there any further comments from members about Chapter 4 before we come back to the proposed amendments to Policy WSO1 that Mr. Freeman mentioned earlier? Councillor Howe. I thought I'd start my day. This is a tough one.

02:26:08It's one of those where I just think we need to talk about it. It's SP07. Chapter before, was it? Which chapter have I gone to then? I'm losing it as well. Yeah, that's chapter three. Chapter three. That's fine. We'll do SPO 7th there. Okay. Yeah, you're behind. Yeah, I would. It's all over the place. It's the reality, and looking at Cranbrook as a classic example, of how are we going to engage these infrastructure providers in a more timely manner to bring forward the other infrastructure that we need now I'm not looking at schools which delivered superbly in Cranbrook generally and other bits and pieces were delivered I'm more thinking of health service and other bits and pieces which are left floundering and I know it's not our remit we collect the money we offer it to the nhs and the nhs doesn't seem to want to spend it in the best world of the world but I am struggling to see how we can engage to make sure we don't make the same mistake a second time and actually

02:27:15Compound the already mistake that's being made with Cranbrook about that so I'm just trying to look for some warm words somewhere I think mr. Freeman I think this comes back to the delivery vehicle by which we take the new community forward doesn't it yes I think it does in terms of the new community and us or the public sector trying to gain control of land at the earliest possible opportunity to enable the delivery of infrastructure such as health care facilities.

02:27:51The other kind of words of comfort I would say is I think all parties have learned a lot of lessons from Cranbrook, particularly the NHS in terms of health care provision and we've now got much better working relationships with the relevant parties, the local NHS, the ICB, to work through those issues and a much greater understanding of what is needed when in terms of the delivery of a new community to learn those lessons in terms of the second new town and hopefully ensure that there is adequate healthcare provision at the appropriate stages as the town grows and is built out.

02:28:29So I think we're in a much better position than we were, only time will tell as to whether or not the money is there to actually deliver the infrastructure in phase with the housing, which will to a large extent depend on the support from government in terms of infrastructure funding. Okay, thank you Mr. Freeman. Councillor Jung, quickly please. Just quickly on the National Health Service, it seems that we are reliant on the National Health Service to come to us when a planning application comes through.

02:29:03But we're now talking about the Local Plan and they don't seem to have responded too well to our Local Plan. We haven't had much input from them, I believe. So it would be nice to get them to understand where we're going with the Local Plan and get them on board. because on some sites that are coming forward but they say oh yes we want this for for our services and on other sites they're totally absent on what they are wanting so I really don't want to end up going any further down this rabbit hole because it's it's beyond the issue that Mike's raised it's not really chapter four but mr. Freeman have the NHS been engaged in this process I know the answer but for the record um well in fairness they have been engaged much more than in previous plans they have commented and we have been sending them uh the projections in terms of new homes in different locations since the allocations um so that they can model the impact on health care

02:30:10Facilities and advise us which would then inform our infrastructure delivery plan which we're working alongside this so I'm pleased to say there's much more engagement than than previously and a much better understanding of the impact on health care services and what needs to be done to deliver what will be needed. I think the key thing now is going to be whether or not the funding is there to actually deliver.

02:30:34So that's good news. Okay, thank you, Mr. Freeman. So coming back then to the proposed change to policy WSO1, if we could perhaps get that on screen. HDMI 2, please.

02:30:50Thank you very much um so this is just if I'm right mr Freeman a proposed addition to policy wso1 is that right that's correct so I would see this additional wording being inserted I think it's after the section that refers to infrastructure uh which is towards the end uh of the policy okay could we uh take the yeah there we go could we just take the video feed off the screen so members can have a moment to uh look through that no that's making me big wrong way just just get rid of me for a minute please there isn't any text under there it's just the word proposed is slightly obscured okay Councillor Jung comments on this proposed edition um from the experience of

02:32:18We've learned our lesson and this seems to be a really good step moving forward with the new town thank you yeah the the stewardship statement I think is well

02:32:53Worded the business of public spaces and community assets to be unmanaged and maintained so on it is fine I think perhaps it doesn't really go far enough though because for me the the new town really has to be almost entirely controlled by whatever this this body is going to be called which is going to include all the land for development particularly well certainly the commercial development perhaps also some land for residential development because without that if we if we hand the the the entirety of the development land to the developers as normal I'm not sure that we're very much further forward with it so what you have there is if you look at look at the Cranbrook set up currently uh stewardship of community assets uh public open spaces and so on that that's really fallen into the the hands of the town council and what we're looking here is something which would be pretty much the same but in terms of the development of um a new town I think that this authority needs to exercise a lot more control over what is built and when um than was

02:34:26The case with Cranbrook and actually the way you do that is by way of ownership but I think that's where it's got to go so I would like to see a stronger and more ambitious wording used to say that this authority has to take a firm grip over a majority of what is going to be developed in the new town? Through you, Chair, I mean, I think the scope of this is quite limited, as you say, in terms of the stewardship and management of assets within the town.

02:35:09I think there's a slightly separate issue around the sort of delivery vehicle for the town itself and how that comes forward, which this doesn't seek to address. And I think there's a challenge there in terms of the role of planning in terms of that. um because a lot of that in terms of whether we establish ownership within the town um whether we establish some kind of locally led development corporation or other vehicle is kind of outside of the planning process and outside of the remit of the Local Plan and comes down to us making an ask of government fundamentally in terms of how that's moved forward and then in response hopefully giving us powers to do those sorts of things um but they're not necessarily things we can tie down in terms of planning policy as I see it that's a slightly separate issue but yes we do need to to take measures to do that and indeed we are I believe the intention is to put forward an expression of interest for the new towns program for example

02:36:09Which would be one avenue of doing that but it's not the only one um you know there are opportunities to approach homes england about alternative delivery vehicles that may give us powers to do a lot of those things as well um but I don't think we can can set that out necessarily in in planning policy um it's more outside of the planning process uh that those things would take place just to reassure you Councillor Blakey we are absolutely doing them 100% even if they don't or can't as mr Freeman says appear in here um we are on it I promise Councillor Jess bailey then Councillor Howe then Councillor Ingham. I'm not 100% sure if this is the point that Councillor Blakey was making. I think it possibly was but I do think that Limby is too restrictive by just referring to public spaces and community assets because actually the life of a new town goes way beyond that. Is that the point that Councillor Blakey was making? Because obviously there's commercial spaces, it's quite narrow to talk about public spaces and community assets.

02:37:22I think, to my mind, community assets can be quite a lot of things, can't they? Depends how you view it. I mean, things like town centres, you know, I'm not sure that that is community assets or public spaces necessarily. Ms Freeman, what do you think? Does that wording need to be broader to cover off Jessie's point? I think it's a balancing act between how precise you are and then end up excluding things by being precise that we might subsequently want to include in that and being quite broad to leave it open to include things.

02:38:02But to my mind, community assets could certainly include town centre spaces, employment spaces that are part of a community endowment scheme that's helping to fund the maintenance and management of community assets. I think it's sort of deliberately broad to take that in. is again part of the challenge with the new community is trying to address all of these issues that might arise in the future without snookering ourselves as it were in terms of what might come in the future as well um so I mean happy to look at the wording if if members feel it needs to be more precise but there are dangers of being too precise as well it's not I'm thinking it needs to be less precise because I think community assets is actually quite narrow because I would look at that and say oh that means community assets like community assets assets of community value quite a restrictive so I'm thinking it should be more general so that it's wider than just specific community assets I think it would be fair to say that's the intention

02:39:12Isn't it mr Freeman so we can take that away and come up with um a wider wording if that's the view of committee I then had Councillor How yeah I don't know if it's just me having a really bad day but I'm sat here reading this and I keep reading it and I go over it several times and to me I'm sitting and looking at Councillor Blakey and thinking the stress and strain that Cranbrook Town Council went through when they tried to remove the estate charges and that's where I'm looking and reading this is more about management companies and estate charges and what because they are effectively pay for the open spaces and everything else and nowhere in these statements do I see our ambition to make sure it remains in public ownership ie ideally the lowest tier the new town council that'll be formed or whatever else should be the ideal route when it's built to be managed and we don't want to fall into this trap anywhere of a management company getting in there somehow throughout whatever way and

02:40:23Then having the pain and frustration we all know happens of then unpicking that and I would just like to see a bit more ambition of stating what the end vehicle is and to me it should be the lower tier of of government which is town council in this case as it will be I I think whispering to mr Freeman our hesitation is probably that it wouldn't necessarily be for a planning policy to stipulate that and that it would be better elsewhere mr Freeman yes my nervousness about doing being too prescriptive is technically from a planning perspective we need to be assured that these spaces are appropriately managed and maintained fundamentally I don't know that it's necessarily appropriate from a planning perspective to be overly prescriptive about how that happens I appreciate we want it to be in in public ownership and see that as the best model um but there are other models um that could achieve the the planning requirements but not necessarily the wider community uh requirements that we might want to place on this so I think this is why it's not prescriptive about a particular model it's about

02:41:42Um getting agreement at an early stage and having that model in place from an early stage so that uh we don't run into you know the issues we've had at Cranbrook where that model's changed during the build-out process. I think what we could do is put something in the explanatory text that states a sort of aspiration about what we would like to see that model to be.

02:42:09But I think exactly what that model is and how that comes forward, again, comes back to delivery vehicles and how this space is being delivered and the government's arrangements that are in place to facilitate that. Councillor Howe has just whispered to me that that's what he wants. So does anybody have any further points about that specific issue? I know we have other speakers on this point. Councillor Blakey, I'll come back to you.

02:42:37One-liner. The question that isn't posed there but needs to be answered is how is it going to be funded? In other words, by whom? Definitely needs answering. Definitely not for this document, but point well made, Councillor Blakey. So coming back to my list then, I believe I had councillors Ingham and then Jung. I think there's a risk, Chair, if we're not careful. It's before you've got married, you're trying to work out who's going to do the washing up and the sewing and the darning.

02:43:20You know it's it's let's not go there because the problem is I think this is a great aspiration funny that you said the words as far as aspiration as well because I do believe you've got a choice haven't you you may want to at the outset to say we will govern this rigidly you know based on how we were treated at Cranbrook you know I would understand that but I would say the most well probably it's not definitely but the most successful long-term outcome for a second community would be through a joint venture between East Devon district council and whoever the developer developers are and if you go in and the reason why I said that opening statement is if you believe a joint venture is correct then um being too prescriptive or restrictive at this stage is foolish, because what you want to do is get the buy-in of your partner and say, well, we thought about these ideas, how do you see this?

02:44:28And so I think Mr. Freeman is right, especially when he said, perhaps we have to capture what we aspire to do. And that was the word I was thinking, you can put in there, we aspire to, and you put your outcomes, and like Mr. Freeman said, that may be through the public sector, it may be through the private whichever doesn't matter potentially because we don't know the climate in 20 years time what we do know is what our communities aspire for us to achieve on their behalf so I'm minded at the moment to say mr Freeman's attitude is right but he might to put Dan, as he said, aspirations of what those outcomes are for this new community because otherwise we will get trapped, as I think one of you said you know, in five years time like we've been at Cranbrook through over-prescribing what would happen, we want this amount of money, ten years later it delivers nothing because it's not enough do you see, we have to be fairly fluid so that we can deliver the right outcomes thank you thank you Councillor Ingham so I want to take us away

02:45:43From talking about what the delivery vehicle is going to look like because that's a discussion I promise very much for another day uh that we will be having down the line uh when that business case uh comes forward from the consultants for us to consider are there any further comments on the wording of this proposed addition to the policy Councillor Jung yeah I would just say this is a planning for the planning document and the government further on how we manage the town it's something totally totally different so that is specific enough for a planning document but with the addition of what Ed has suggested with a bit more explanation why we're doing it so the inspector was like oh I see what we're doing that makes good sense okay thank you Councillor Jung so I'm gonna move us on from this one then as I think we've explored that one I'm conscious that actually and I'm gonna be guilty of it now as well we missed out the proposed additional policy to go into chapter three so we're

02:46:55Gonna I'm sorry but we're gonna we're gonna just quickly go back to uh this one on uh phased developments hopefully fairly uncontroversial but does anybody have any comments about this policy which is a proposed addition to chapter three and once we've done this one we're going to take a break if that's an incentive Councillor Ingham thanks I'm not sure we can do anything about it but please be aware or in my opinion on track record the problem with doing this is that you concertina your land supply and then you know what you propose to do until 2042 is all achieved by 2032 and then surprise surprise we've got to do another Local Plan because we've already delivered or over delivered which we've done for most of this period whereas every other council's failed most of them have failed abysmally you know so just cautious about oversupply which we've done recently I think this is more about phased phasing development within an allocation rather than when developments happen on the timeline of the plan and but point taken there don't forget your microphone thank

02:48:12You Ben any any specific comments on the wording of this policy yes where we're talking about cycling and pedestrian highways are always telling me off when I talk about a cycle way and there's a multi use shared use etc etc we need to be specific all the way through and have an agreement with highways how we're going to describe these site I still call them cycle ways so somehow we need the same same wording all the way all through the whole document now we talk about cycle ways I think all of this is all that this is saying is that whatever form that access takes whether it's just pedestrian access with separate cycle access or whether it's multi-use I that's a matter for the planning application this is just saying that that access needs to be maybe we just need a description somewhere in the appendix saying cycleways means and then put in what highways want us to put it does it really matter I'm a bit fed up of highways telling us what we can and can't do and say to be honest I'm sure

02:49:37That this it's not just me and but maybe we can take that away and reflect on it rather than dig another hole Councillor Ledger then Councillor Jess bailey my question really is the the policy as written will it deliver deliver the outcomes that we're seeking because if you if you read the such developments shall also ensure that all services including electric broadband and all of that uh also delivered up to the boundaries of each phase or parcel now a developer could turn around and say oh I want to phase this into this this site into uh four phases I'm only going to do three phases now and then you you then get into the whole rigmarole of ransom strips again because if you've got two adjoining developers uh and one of them only builds out to phase three yes they've built out to the the boundary of phase three but they haven't unlocked the the next developer and and by the wording currently there is no mitigation for that I'm not sure I understand if they

02:50:53All build up to the boundary then the adjoining developer can pick up the services and the pedestrian cycling and vehicle accesses from the boundary into their site oh I see so if there are phases within a developers parcel and and they do phases one to three but phase four is the one that borders the other development or the other developers parcel within I know it's nitpicky but it's something that I can guarantee you a developer would use uh do you understand what you're saying is that one we can take away because the intent is clearly there we'll take that one away thank you done Councillor Jess bailey then Councillor How thank you um so there's quite a lot of text on the screen and I just think it's a bit woolly so what I would like to see is developers being required you know the policy should say developers must do x y and z and produce a master plan allocate responsibilities, comply with those responsibilities. That's just like a load of text that, you

02:52:17Know, how are we going to hold developers to make sure they deliver phase delivery and infrastructure and services? I just can't see that that's going to be able to deliver what we, you know, it just reads a bit like a kind of, oh, we hope that they're going to coordinate between them. No, we need to have a policy directing them to coordinate and evidence how they're going to be coordinating. So to me, that's just a bit woolly. Sorry.

02:52:43Thank you. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that. There's lots of... As far as I can see, each of the individual requirements in this policy all have a must or a shall insure or an equivalent kind of imperative instruction. um I don't maybe I'm missing something I don't see anything in there that says ought to or would be nice if they did um how using that how will you establish during the master planning process that actually the respective responsibilities are allocated to the different developers because presumably from the outset you need to know that this person's doing this this and this and this person's doing this and this and you've got it all clearly set out in your master plan with your time scales and obligations and that there's not just a kind of to me that just isn't I just don't see how you can hold the different developers to account using that wording that's for you chair I mean I think we've done the best we can to word a policy to

02:54:21Address the issue I'm not saying it's absolutely bulletproof um hopefully there would be a master plan and we can work those things through in cooperation with all of the different parties working together such that we don't need to rely on this policy because it is a result through a master plan and a phasing plan um but there will inevitably I suspect to be some instances where developers are not working together in a kind of collegiate way on master plans and phasing plans.

02:54:54And so I think having a policy like this as a fallback, if that doesn't happen, puts us in a much stronger position than if we don't. And frankly, at the moment, we don't have a policy like this. So these things do happen. I'm struggling to see what else we can do to address the concern you raised, Councillor Bailey. I think part of it is just the way it's presented in like a really big like however many lines just of solid text I like to see things really clearly so then you can pick out and you can say policy this you have to do that you're not doing it whereas that's like we we can certainly break this down into component ABC parts can't we yes we can certainly look at the formatting of the wording and um a list of requirements rather than a block of text I have to admit it the block of text gradually got bigger and bigger as it got redrafted and different people commented and different things got added in um so it's a fair challenge that we could certainly make the

02:55:56Formatting make it and make it easier to read okay we will we will take that point then um Councillor Howe, then Councillor Jung, and then I want to take a break. Well, mine's fairly simple and actually not that relevant, but at the same time, at present, this is new policy to all of us, so we're reading it for the first time. And not one of us understands the justification for the policy because it has been blocked from our view, partly.

02:56:24So it would be nice to know the missing words, picking up on points earlier made in public, of what we're missing. and maybe that's something we need to pick up with technology in a bit of time as well I'm sure we can't just hide the video Wendy I'm sure we've done it before so with everybody now having had a chance to read that

02:57:19Councillor Jung final comment yeah what we're looking for is joined up approach from the developers that you don't have a cable just going to the end of the road and then another developer then has to then put another cable in to compensate for the lack of size of the cable at the end of the road one of my big beefs is some surface water drainage with every site having to do their own sud scheme and I would like to see a more of a joint approach with that so rather than have a pond here and upon there have one big pond and that can be done the master planning it can be covered by that and the other point is some of those providers cannot use 106 money I'm thinking of Southwest water so maybe we need to change the wording a bit because some providers can't use where six some providers come I think here the 106 is just about securing obligations to do stuff rather than money isn't it Mr Freeman and so that issue wouldn't crop up

02:58:35Yes that's right that's why the wording is developments should also ensure that all services are delivered to end it lost it um but it refers to um work working with providers rather than us funding the intention isn't that we'd be funding infrastructure for for any of those really In terms of suds and drainage basins, it raises some challenges because unlike the others, I think that is something that can be dealt with phase by phase.

02:59:11You can deal with it just on phase. And I can't see developers wanting to have surface water from their development discharging onto adjoining phases and be stored and handled on adjoining phases. I think that's going beyond what we need to achieve under this policy, if I'm honest. It's something that does happen, though, and certainly happened at Cranbrook in the first phases there with a coordinated approach. But I'm not sure that we need to secure that approach necessarily.

02:59:50There's equal merit in each each parcel, each site washing its own face as it were in terms of surface water I did say I was going to draw this to a close Councillor Fernley your microphone Is this a planning term or is it just gobbledygook virtually the last line I can't read it all because we've got everything there and it goes comprehensive movement network, what's a movement network second to last line a movement network would be a network of pedestrian cycling and vehicular routes that enable movement through the space um so yes it is slightly jargony um I think I think we're just trying to use a different form of words than saying pedestrian cycling and vehicular routes again um but we can look at that we can de-jargonify that that's fine Councillor Ledger thank you jeff question on process this there's a couple of things that we've already said that we're going to take it away when are we going to see that again before it goes out or are we going to be able to review that

03:01:10Are we even going to get notice of it before we go to Reg 19 consultation just a question on process so um I believe and mr female will correct me if I'm wrong that the answer there is it depends when the MPPF comes out if we have time to bring the final final version back in January before the Reg 19 consultation starts then the intention is to do so if we don't then we'll go straight to Reg 19 consultation am I correct Mr Freeman yes so my hope was that you would give delegated powers to me in consultation with the chair and the vice chair as appropriate to agree any tweaks and amendments that you agree today to go straight out to consultation if that's what we need to do to keep to the timetable.

03:02:00But if the new NPPF comes out and does give us more than a month to launch the Reg 19 consultation such that we can bring it back to a meeting in the new year, then happy to bring back a final version for the final sign-off. But we just don't know what's going to happen if the NPPF does come out this week and we've only got a month to launch the consultation then there won't be an opportunity to bring it back completely fine with that completely appreciate it it's just the fact that the members here would would need to see sight of that I just hope that once all the amendments are completed and you intend to go out to recognizing that that is shared with with the membership as in notice that it's going to be happening or here's the final plan do you have any final comments because I think the problem with the latter would be it could be a case of it's not going to be designed by committee if we give

03:02:52If we give delegation to the two of you then then we've got that but it's just having uh having sight of this is what officers have come up with what we could do because my intention is we've obviously got the document in in the team's format we can uh we need to track any changes that are made following this this meeting so if it gives members comfort before we launch the consultation we could send around the track changes version so that members can see how it's evolved from your meeting today to the version that goes out to consultation because it's that track changes version I'll be asking the chair to sign off on the difficulty with that I can't commit to be able to give you much time before the consultation goes live it might only be a day or two before the consultation goes live but we can certainly let you have a track changes version before it does go live I'm completely happy with that it's just ensuring that what we're saying today is then included in

03:03:55That in in that finalized version and if there are any things that have been missed off that we can flag that before it goes out and I think everyone here would be in agreement with that I understand I think we can make that commitment then um rest assured I will also be looking for that as part of that delegated authority thing but point point taken I think um was there someone else who wanted to say something before we finish Councillor How no you're sticking your finger in the air like you normally do when you want to speak okay in that case then we'll take a break for 10 minutes and come back at uh quarter past 12 to consider chapter five before lunch okay

03:16:52Thank you, members. Welcome back. We come now to Chapter 5, which includes the allocations, I believe I'm right in saying. Just to remind members, the allocation decisions have been taken. We're not going to be revisiting those other than the two that officers have flagged legal concerns regarding.

03:17:15So we'll take those two first to get them out of the way. Mr Freeman, could you bring up the slides? And we'll start with Budl_01. Could you perhaps just give us a brief reminder what the issues were here and what you're asking us to consider, please, Mr Freeman? Yes, certainly, Chair. So members may recall when we were looking at the wash-up session in terms of sites, I think there was concern among membership that Budleigh-Sorterton was taking a disproportionately low number of homes.

03:17:55And so there was a resolution to allocate up to 50 homes on Budl_01, focused in the north-eastern corner of the site. We delegated authority to myself in conjunction with the chair to determine the boundary of that site. We have subsequently had discussions with the developers. this is what they've come up with as a means of doing that which is I think 53 homes essentially across the three uh sort of portions of the site through fields you can see on the screen our feeling is that this has a disproportionately high landscape impact for the number of dwellings that it achieves this site is quite visible from a particular public footpath over the other side towards the coast and the golf course looking back across towards this part of the town but we do understand that there is the only opportunity to access this site really is from from Bedlands Lane up here that does necessitate I can't say that word necessitate quite a long section of road to to access the part of the site that I think members were were most supportive

03:19:09Of which was this corner here and therefore you would need some development along that route to help to pave that road and to make it work in placemaking terms in terms of having dwellings fronting onto it so it is it is challenging but the conclusion we've reached as officers is that we feel that the impact on the national landscape and the green wedge in this location is not justified in terms of the housing numbers that it would deliver and we have demonstrated that we can meet the housing numbers elsewhere including the 10% buffer without needing to allocate this site in a national landscape particularly bearing in mind the special justification that would be needed given that it is in a national landscape so the recommendation is that we do not proceed with an allocation of the site okay thank you mr. Freeman and this goes to recommendation which number is it number four yes recommendation for that set out in the covering report okay so we'll come to members then I saw Councillor Jess bailey then Councillor Ingham um I think I'm happy with well not happy but um

03:20:27Accepting personally of what the officers say um I do have a query though on page 24 which is the chart why does it say Budleigh solderton 182 houses apologies I haven't got the chart in front of me because I'm sharing my my screen um is this in the neighborhood designated area requirements housing requirement 182 that's on page yeah so that's taking into account uh consent schemes as well since uh 2020 isn't it so that's across the full plan period um so have there been there have been some infield developments within the town consented in and built during that time which is bolstering that numbers over and above the allocations okay thank you can stringham chair have I misremembered the size of the actual original allocation wasn't it bigger than what you're showing us well didn't include the three fields south of that the total site put forward yes included the three fields to the south one to the west so they haven't totally ignored what we said they have done what I thought we'd ask them to do that's that implies that they've filled up

03:22:07[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.]

03:23:29This site um I'm not saying they've taken an unreasonable interpretation of what was discussed at the meeting um I think my advice to the committee was that it was that uh northeastern most field that was the most developable um but I take your point you I think you could get 50 in but it wouldn't reflect the density of bedlands lane it would reflect more the density of the housing further to the north that you can see on on the plan um but ultimately I don't think um it makes sense as an allocation given what we've achieved in terms of housing numbers elsewhere and the sensitivity of of this site um but they could pursue a planning application and it be considered on its its merits equally they can object to the plan and make their representations to the examination and argue that it should be included as an examination so it's not entirely the end of the the road in terms of the allocation if if members do support the recommendation but um I don't think we need to or or should be allocating this site given its

03:24:34Sensitivities thank you Councillor Ingham Councillor Jung um yeah so if we don't accept this site then it then falls back into the green wedge as proposed on the on the map which would and also the built-up area boundary or whatever we're going to call it now it's going to be excluded from that so it would be very difficult for justification for a planning application to come through because it's green wedge national landscape and it's outside the built-up area boundary so we're basically excluding this site for the period of the plan I find it very difficult to justify to the residents I represent that bodily is having such a a small percentage of housing development compared with their villages other than the ones that I represent. So I find it difficult to accept, but I can't see any other alternative.

03:25:57Thank you, Councillor Jung. I can't say I necessarily disagree with that sentiment. Councillor Brian Bailey.

03:26:05Thank you chair as a former resident of Budleigh Solderton, I've lived in Budleigh Solderton for the best part of 50 years I'm now an excellent I can't see a problem with this I know this there extremely well I played in there when I was a child I used to go shooting rabbits and whatever in my younger days and this is in the green wedge granted but the two fields that are coming down the hill are very large in fact they're larger than those three put together so you still have a considerable amount of green wedge left if that was developed also I would prefer this to be developed than the possibilities of ones in Barn Lane because the access is better you've got a walkway to the school which is literally across the road so that would make life easier and I know we shouldn't you're going to tell me off for this what I'm going to say anyway. When you compare this to Exxonf 20, Exxonf 20 hasn't got as snowballs compared to this with the access

03:27:12And the level ground and not destroying any particular areas of woodland and things like that. So I can't see how you can be against this but for Exxonf 20. I know it shouldn't be compared but I feel obliged to. Thank you very much, Chair. Okay, thank you, Councillor Bailey. I'm going to propose the recommendation as written from the chair. The delegated authority was to Ed in consultation with me, so I saw this before this meeting and broadly agree.

03:27:52Actually, does that make me predetermined, Mr Hunter? Well, in the sense that I agreed with Ed that this should be brought back to ask committee to take it out. well my understanding if you feel that you've made a final decision on it before it came back to committee and was debated then you would have predetermined yourself but if you were still just saying that you thought it should come back to the committee to be debated by them and then you would make your final decision then you haven't predetermined the issue that's how you felt about it at the time I think I probably had predetermined it actually so I'm not going to propose that so then if somebody else can actually point of order you haven't taken the recommendations for the previous items but you take the recommendations for this I thought we were going to take all of the recommendations right yeah it's so as my suggestion is that as these are very specifically about things that are in this chapter we do these now the other

03:29:00Recommendations cover the whole plan not just the amendments to the policies that were in there, if that makes sense. So that's why I'm suggesting we take these now. But I'm not going to propose and I'll abstain from voting because I think I've already decided before I came in. So we have a proposal from Councillor Jess Bailey. Councillor Fernandes, are you seconding that? Okay. Yeah, I'm not going to vote.

03:29:25So we have a proposal then that's just to check, that's recommendation four as written in officers' report to take Budleigh 01 out. Yep, okay, just making sure there. So we have a proposal to take Budleigh 01 out from Councillor Jess Bailey. Are there any further comments? No, okay, in which case then, all those in favour of that proposal, please. I count six, those against, three, and those abstaining, that's two.

03:30:04Okay, so that is carried then, thank you, members. We come then to, we'll do the other site where officers are asking us to look at it specifically, and that's Otto 02. Mr. Freeman, can you just briefly remind us the issue here, please? Yes, so the issue here is twofold, really. One, this was a site that the members resolved to allocate for up to eight dwellings, but is within flood zone, needs to go through the strategic flood risk assessment stage two.

03:30:37It hasn't done. To do so and do the relevant modelling would cost over £10,000. You have subsequently agreed to include the site within the settlement boundary anyway. So in principle it can come forward as it's within the settlement boundary even without an allocation. So the recommendation is that rather than do the additional work, which would cause delay to the plan I would point out, as well as the cost associated with that, that we simply remove the allocation but leave it within the settlement boundary so that it can come forward anyway even without the allocation okay thank you mr Freeman Councillor Ledger then Councillor Jess bailey uh happy to pose that chair can I ask a question on general sites so once I've looked for a seconder yes you can Councillor Jess bailey I saw first do you want to say anything uh no that seems completely sensible okay Councillor Ledger so as part of this site wasn't originally allocated by or recommended to be allocated by officers and so that they didn't they didn't have time to do the additional work can I

03:31:43Get assurances the the additional work has been done to all other allocated sites namely EXMO20 because that was previously wasn't proposed as being allocated by officers and we the committee have made that decision so it's just to ensure that all of the additional work have been done for all of the other remaining sites yes so through you chair this is the only one I'm bringing back because of this issue I don't think there were flooding issues specifically with EXMO20 off the top of my head um but if there were that's already been covered in in the sfra work that we've done this is this is the site that that causes those issues um and it's it's not just the additional work it's the extent of the additional work because you'd need to do various modeling work of of watercourses and flood zones in this case so it's the scale of the work as well as it needed to be bolted on we did bolt on some further stage two sfro work after the allocations but where it was

03:32:43A lighter touch approach that was needed and could be done in the time scales this one it's it's quite a heavy duty piece of work that would be needed um so it doesn't make sense in terms of time scales and costs to do it in this particular case all the other sites would be covered there councillors young Ingham Fernley in that order those two sides proposed in Austin we turned the one down of back lane and we thought this one was pretty well suitable info and we we supported it so that means that both suggestions for any development in Otterton won't come forward in the Local Plan but they're going to be in the built-up area boundary did Otterton have a built-up area boundary previously I can't remember if it had or not but I do notice that there's once one village that hasn't got a built-up area boundary But seeing it's in national landscape, it's in the coastal preservation area, national landscape, it's got all the protections on it.

03:34:12The other one we were discussing with Budleigh, we're removing the boundary from it. but these two will still be in the built-up area bandwidth so do we want developers in the future to come forward with that or not that's my question So just to reassure you the other sites at Otterson would still be allocated and not proposing to unallocate that sort of work has been done because we had recommended allocation of that site so we knew in advance that work would be needed um or thought it would be um in terms of I'm not I'm pretty sure otterton had a built-up area boundary before he says looking across to mr dickens okay apparently not in the villages plan um but I mean I think it it it meets all of the criteria we're working to in terms of the the current assessments and obviously I acknowledge you know it's in the national landscape but equally so it's Budleigh Salterton and we've always had a settlement boundary around so um I I don't think it's is that's I think there's an acceptance even in the national

03:35:28Landscape that within settlement boundaries developments will will come forward um and and that in itself is is is not um such an issue is is more expansion on on the edges of those boundaries as we were looking at Budleigh one a minute ago that that caused greatest concern in terms of national landscape impacts of those those settlements um but it's it's it's a settlement with a good range of services and facilities for tier four settlement so I think it justifies a settlement boundary um and and some some modest growth coming forward in in line with the spatial strategy which I think the plan still accommodates with the allocation that that remains and as I say this site adjacent to north star could still come forward through an application process being within the settlement boundary but it would then put the onus on the applicants to do the modeling work for the flood risk assessment in that case I would like to propose that um yes we exclude the one at north star it's I think it's already been

03:36:32Proposed and seconded um but thank you jeff um it was Councillor Ledger and I think Councillor Jess Bailey seconded it? Yes. Okay. I was then going to come to, was it you, Councillor Ingham? It was, Chair. Thank you. Based on what we see, I think an observer or resident from Otterton may well say, well, why on earth, at the early stage, didn't you just cross these two off the list? Because we've crossed one off, included one, and then we've taken the second one which and then we put in the built-up area boundary so um that'd be in my mind they'd be forgiven um for saying well what the hell do you want there you know if one's in why isn't the other are they both out or are they both probably going to be developed because you've done a built-up area boundary do you see what I'm saying so you know this this is where we we leave ourselves wide open for you know what is your intent here and and it seems to me as as I'd

03:37:45Said that these two sites will come forward you know and all we're trying to do is save um 10 ground uh while that happens um but people will say as you know uh Councillor Jung was saying well look at the the designations look at what you've you've done there and then you're saying it will be okay anyway because we're you've just created a built-up area boundary meaning you know that's what they'll say thanks jim okay thank you Councillor Ingham any further comments on this point Councillor Fernley this relates back to Councillor Ledger's comment about this was a site that was not recommended by officers and it hasn't had all the flood risks done I just want to make sure about braces that broadcliffe 12 that wasn't recommended had also had its little risk done if it wasn't done for this one why would it have done for broadness 12b thank you um well my understanding is that um all of these sites there's different levels of work that would be needed depending on the constraints to those sites so this site particularly causes us an issue because

03:39:14Of the level of modeling work that would be needed to take it to that next level in terms of the flood risk assessment work I believe uh some of the other sites that members allocated that we hadn't recommended for allocation have been done as additional work through the consultants for the strategic flood risk assessment so my understanding is this is the only one where we're not proposing to do that work because of the scale of what's involved and the fact that it's now within the settlement boundary anyway so my understanding is all of the others have either already been through in terms of the strategic flood risk assessment work or have subsequently now been going through that process so I'm not aware of any other issues in terms of the SFRA work so there shouldn't be anything to worry about with that site thank you okay thank you mr. Freeman I'm going to take us to a vote then on the proposal by Councillor Ledger seconded by Councillor Jess Bailey to remove Otto 02 from the regulation 19

03:40:12Draft all those in favor please eight in favor those against two and those abstaining one that adds up okay thank you very much members we come then to council of faithful uh issue with tipton site before you you're barging on so we we well so we are literally coming to the rest of chapter five now uh so this is the correct moment for council of faithful to intervene um but we're not talking about specific site allocation decisions today if there's an issue with the wording of what was agreed is different to what is written down on the document as far as I can see then that is something self-built houses there's the school was supposed to be going on this if the school was to go on the site there'll be five self-built houses alongside it it now says the self-built houses will be there whether or not the school is there so long as the school is somewhere in Tipton and I that was not what was agreed it also means that the site it without altering the entrance

03:41:37To the site it's impossible to turn right coming out of there so it's not workable for five self-built houses unless unless they're going to be multi-million pound self-built houses to cover the cost of closing off the lane and major road alterations to the entrance to the site okay thank you for

03:42:41Highlighting that problem council of faithful and you're right that is an error so that will be amended and thank you other comments elsewhere in this chapter where there are issues like the ones council of faithful has just raised bearing in mind that we are not revisiting individual site allocation decisions I'm sorry for labouring that point but it's an important one Councillor Jess bailey I agree with uh council faithful but on Ottery I think I raised last time that Ottery 09 the plan um is shown so Ottery 09 which is Devon County Council site I'm a Devon county Councillor Um that we agreed the wording says that it's a mixed site education and housing I made the point last time that the shading shouldn't just show housing but it hasn't been changed and it still just shows a vast housing site the plan needs to be changed to reflect the fact that it's a mixed site and we did I did actually say exactly the same thing last time and it was agreed that that would

03:43:51Be amended please uh yes future that's correct I'm just looking at the annotation because we've gone housing and housing and employment rather than mixed use we perhaps need to look at how we pick up sites where it's housing and another use that's not employment um but yes happy to take that away and we can look at the annotation on the plan for australia st mary okay thank you any other issues of that ilk members okay go ahead I'm actually going to pick up xmas 20 land at St John's I've read it a few times I'm not querying the allocation or anything else at this point but I do wish to raise as the public has we don't anywhere in this raise the issue of the purple beddies triple si and the 400 meters mitigation zone that we should not ideally be building in I know it's in other policies but surely we should just be highlighting it to any further developer the northern part of this site has its issues to overcome something like that I'm through chair I mean we I think we did discuss this when we looked at this we

03:45:28We could put some text in refers to that what we tried to avoid in terms of the text that goes with each allocation is repeating policy requirements that are set out elsewhere in the plan and there is a policy elsewhere in the plan that says about the 400 meter exclusion zone in terms of the pebble bed heaves so I don't necessarily see a need to state it in terms of of EXMO20 but we can do if members want us to add in a sentence to just make that clear can we just put in a sentence that says any allocation needs to comply with policy pbo4 just so that the issue is explicitly covered if only for the benefit of the public okay other issues council brian bailey thank you just carrying on from mike's question um the site you mentioned the access there are three proposals if memory serves uh one on the main road to buddy salton near the archery club uh which is way too far to town it's going to put a long journey into

03:46:33Exmouth and it's not sustainable from that one. The other one is through Southern Wood which is a very quiet well designed cul-de-SAC and at the back of there there's an ancient woodlander track which it's been suggested will be demolished for an entrance there which is highly unsuitable because it will come out of the cul-de-SAC onto a bend which is the Dinan Way. Whatever highways thought of when they were they said it'd be fine I just do not know and the other one the possibility is going up to the back of the industrial estate by McDonald's and that again is has to be accessed through land which I believe is owned by the same landowner and that is going through ancient forest again so I'd just like to try and highlight some protection for those areas please if that's possible Mr Freeman I think I'll be right in saying that will be in later chapters of the plan that are concerned with the natural environment is that right well there's certainly policies that protect ancient woodlands and

03:47:45Natural assets in the plan I think in terms of the accesses my recollection is that there's some limited scope for access at that southern point onto Dean and Way because of the issues that Councillor Bailey raises. So I think we did highlight when members were considering this site that the primary access would need to be out by the Archery Club and that that was out of the town.

03:48:13So that was made clear when members made that allocation. So those would be the two access points, as I see it, albeit, as I say, access at that southern point would have to be limited because of the constraints at the highway at that point. Okay, thank you. Councillor Fernley. I've been asked to question why the 0.1 hectare of employment land has disappeared from Brooklyn 29. I understand the concept of the master plan, and I think that's a really good idea.

03:48:51But from the clerk, where Brooklyn... Yeah, I'm going to stop you there, because that was raised by email, and I think that was just an error in drafting the paperwork, wasn't it, Ed? because that correspondence was shared by email. Yes, I thought we'd addressed it in this iteration of the plan, though I'm just having a look. August 29. So, yes, there was... So, no, it's not in there as 0.1 for 29.

03:49:27We've got 0.6 at August 12, haven't we? And then the two being master planned together, but not the 0.1 at August 29. So, no, that needs to be added in, because that was part of the original resolution was that that was so that that is just an error but thank you for spotting that Councillor Fernley any other comments on sites within this chapter Councillor Roy collins 2018 the um agent is carter jonas carter jonas are also agents for national highways they deal with all aspects of National Highways land, SL something, SLR, who have drawn up the road

03:50:32Junction plans. They're also National Highways architects for drawing up road plans. There's no they're not independent they're all pushing together to get this development done so we're not getting a proper aspects from them I don't feel also I'd like to speak about the actual land the lower the fields there the name of the field is town lakes Surely town lakes means there's a lot of water there.

03:51:21There is a brook down the bottom of the field. There's also a leet that runs across the field. The leet was Honnerton's main water supply before the 1920s. There's an iron gutter down through the high street. People used to come out with their jugs and dip the water up. That's what they used. There's a lot of springs in that particular field. In the area further up, you've got the name Springfield, Waterleet.

03:51:57There's an awful lot of water in this land. It should not be built on, I feel. It's historic value because it was Honiton's ancient water supplies which is still there up until reorganization the borough council used to keep the water supply up thank you Councillor Collins as I said we're not revisiting decisions to allocate or not individual sites today because those decisions have been made with the exception of the two that mr Freeman needed to highlight I'd like to point out there's been no public consultation on this site council council know nothing of it I spoke to the town clerk last week I was wondering how East Devon Council we're going to make the residents aware of this site so we've discussed this on a number of occasions before Councillor Collins so I'm not going to go over old ground their residents will have the opportunity to comment in the consultation that's upcoming in the new year and that will be publicized as all of our consultations are to residents and to the Town Council and so there will be an opportunity to

03:53:14Comment Councillor Jess Bailey is now an appropriate time to talk about the Newton Popperford boundary or I know that the ward member because we had a revised boundary was that this afternoon I'm happy to wait Chris is certainly down speak this afternoon not sure where the settlement boundaries are in the paperwork I'll wait this is chapter six regarding settlement boundaries but chapter six is mitigating climate change that's actually chapter three so we have already been through it um we'll yeah we'll come back to it and tackle it at the start of the afternoon as that's when uh Councillor Burhop is coming any other comments on the allocation strategies allocation policies okay well that's resounding silence then um so uh we will come then to the end of the morning session with one thing that we missed out from the start of the morning session which was to consider the minutes of the previous meeting which was supposed to be on my script but weren't in the end for whatever reason so did anybody have any comments on those four

03:54:49Sets of minutes from let me just get the dates the 1st of November the 5th of November the 22nd of November or the 29th of November no okay in which case I'll take it that those are all agreed and I will sign those appropriately. That brings us to the end of the morning session then. We're going to reconvene at 2 o'clock I think it is. I'm looking the script. Afternoon session not before 2pm so we will reconvene members at 2 o'clock. Thank you very much.

00:00:00It's then up to council to decide whether or not they accept that. If it helps, Chair, I would make the point that the plan prior to submission to the inspectorate has to go through council. That won't happen until after the second round of Reg 19 consultation has been completed, which will be beyond six months. so so that might be if the members are minded to revisit this that might be a better time and place to do it at that stage when you don't have this encumbrance of the constitution as we have done before Councillor Jess Bailey then Councillor Jung I mean if we want to do if the exact location is being delegated we could to just draw a tiny, tiny bit around the smallest little section adjacent to the area 04 and 05, not even maybe going to the west of the Exmouth Road.

00:01:08But I think that I really... I mean, I think we can't get too tied up in the revoking decisions. I mean, we're not approving the final version of the plan, as in, you know, to be adopted. We're not at a full council meeting. So I think I also agree with Councillor Ledger.

00:01:28Thank you. I must say I would like to agree with Councillor Ledger. But unfortunately, as the chair, I have to take advice from Mr. Hunter. And if that advice differs from Councillor Ledger's, I'm afraid Mr. Hunter supersedes it. Everybody's got their hand up. Councillor Jung, then Councillor Howe. Can you dig us out of this hole? please I read it to be that I read it to be up to Exmouth Road and not on to the other side and up a side road by by hundred meters but the other point is that this is going out for consultation and we'll be recommending alterations to do to the whole document following the consultation anyway so we could I take it back then my turn right the worst thing we could possibly do now as we stand today is give a nut a massive sledgehammer the Kraken tiny nut and And that's what we'd be doing if we tried changing this boundary today, because then one of the other allocation sites where we've got residents up in arms about their allocations would quite rightly say you've made a wrong decision.

00:03:10Your Local Plan isn't sound to even go to a planning inspectorate because you have abused the powers we have. That is the fundamental issue we have. We cannot change it now. We can change it when it comes back to full council for its final reading, as we have done before. So yes, we can, but we cannot legally change it now without the possibility of throwing the whole Local Plan out and really messing up everything completely.

00:03:39And that is the worst and the sincerest way I can put this. We have to follow the law, and we cannot do anything but... I mean, technically, it's standing orders rather than the law. Well, it's the same thing, actually. Councillor Bailey. But then how can we change our decision about an allocation for Budleigh to allocate 50 houses, and we've changed that today? I think the distinction there is that officers have come back with further information that changes the circumstances, whereas I don't...

00:04:19That's a far bigger deal than changing a boundary, because we're not even changing an allocation.

00:04:58Members, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, the Chairs outline what the Constitution says with regards to this. you're wanting to change your decision that you've made less than a month ago and you're not in a position to do that at the moment so I don't think there's anything more to be said about it. Well then we have to revoke our decision on Bodley because we can't we can't.

00:08:06Okay so for the benefit of those at home while we try and resolve this issue and what the appropriate way forward if any is we're going to take a what time is it it's 14 30 we're going to take a five minute recess just to resolve this issue and then we'll be back with you. Okay thank you for your patience members

00:20:56While we sort some advice on how we move forward with this. Mr Hunter has consulted with colleagues and is going to share the content of his advice with us and then it will be down to members to decide where to go from there. Thank you chair. I've just had a quick chat to the democratic services manager who agrees with my uh interpretation and suggested way forward as we said in relation to paragraph 13 previous decisions motion or amendment to rescind decision meeting at the council which he agrees also would apply to uh this committee uh within the past six months cannot be moved unless a motion a notice of motion is signed by at least 15 members so obviously we haven't got that to be able to do that so what you're suggesting to be able to get around that situation is to suspend the actual rules of procedure and again then if you go to article 15 of the constitution it does say a motion to suspend any rules will not be moved without notice unless at least one half of the whole number of councils entitled to attend the

00:22:02Meeting question is present now I believe that there are more than half the members of this committee present so it is possible for you to suspend the constitution and it says the extent and duration of this suspension will be proportionate to the result to be achieved taking account of the purposes of the constitution as set out in article one so it is possible for you to do that but again democratic services manager agrees with me that it's quite dubious behavior to do so uh in relation to a decision that you've taken less than one month ago that now because it suits your purpose as you're saying you don't want to rely upon the constitution anymore which is being agreed by full council and put in place for your guidance and it doesn't suit you today to want to do that so maybe at the next meeting you might decide that you don't want to follow the constitution again and you might wish to suspend the constitution and never follow the constitution and I just want you to have a think about how that looks to the

00:23:01Members of the public and whether that may be perceived as being quite appalling behaviour but leave that with you now to decide which you want to go forward thank you members so if uh you want to move a motion to amend the newton poppleford settlement boundary today uh then the spans expanding orders standing orders need to be suspended does anybody wish to so move Councillor Jess bailey do you wish to speak I do I think I hear what our advice is but I so strongly feel that um including that extra area is not the right thing to do um that I other people may not feel the same way but I think it's a really important uh decision about road safety so um for me uh yeah I would be prepared to so that we can get the right decision and actually we're not even really making a decision we're making a recommendation and we're not a full council and I'm just not, I feel so concerned about the boundary that I would make that proposal.

00:24:15Thank you. Okay, the proposal has been made. Does anybody wish to second the proposal to suspend whichever standing order it was? It's the constitution you suspend. Yeah. Okay.

00:24:31Councillor Ledger, you wish to second the proposal to suspend the rules of procedure? Yes, please, Chair. I don't think we're going to descend into absolute anarchy if we're going to do it this once just to get the right outcomes. I think that's the crux of this. It's not that we're doing it for some underhanded reasons or we're trying to shoehorn something through. I think everyone in the room has identified that there is a mistake that's been made and we wish to rectify that at this meeting.

00:25:00Okay, so that has been seconded. We then open the floor if anybody wishes to speak on that proposal. Councillor Ingham thank you chair I do believe we can take that decision but if we do that sort of decision I think it should be because we've made a profound error not a decision that we regret yes and I think there's a difference there I don't think this is a profound error that we need to put right um on this scale so um I wouldn't be supporting it chair thank you Councillor Ingham Councillor How yeah I'm going to speak against this motion not because I think the boundary is correct in its current form I think it is wrong like others but I believe the correct way to do it is when this concept this paper when comes back to full council and that's when it can be change without amending the Constitution or suspending the Constitution and it is the correct and proper way of doing it not an ad-hoc way that leaves us open to

00:26:04No end a sort of accusation of you don't like it so you just suspend your rules Mike didn't make a proposal but thank you thank you Councillor Bailey Councillor Jung I tend to agree with Councillor How on this one yeah I can see the sense of changing it it makes perfect sense but at the time we made the decision now we go back on it I think we need to stick to that decision and we can change it later on we recognize its mistake and it will be changed but but not today just just to be clear even if we do suspend the standing orders it's not guaranteed that the boundary will change. I'd remind members that actually Strategic Planning Committee voted for this boundary on the 22nd of November. This didn't come out of nowhere.

00:27:07Do any other members wish to speak on this point? Okay. In which case then we go to a vote on the motion to suspend the rules of procedure. I can't believe this is happening to me. All those in favour please. I see two hands in favour of that motion. All those against, please. One, two, three, four, five, six. And those abstaining, please. That's just me. So that proposal fails, I'm afraid, folks.

00:27:49Which means a motion to redraw the boundary can't be made at this time. I think I'm right in saying therefore. so do we just move on in which case then we come to the remainder of the agenda and we come to chapter 6 mitigating climate change a slight change of topic members are there any comments on this chapter Councillor Fernley thank you I would just like a comment from Ed just to say why we haven't gone to say we have solar panels on the roofs of all the houses I think I can remember correctly but I keep being asked it by residents and I would like this down on the tape for record so the issue there was the impact on viability of us stipulating that solar panels had to be on there where there are other measures that we could stipulate instead that would have a greater carbon impact in terms of embodied carbon in construction is that right and we've also got a policy in there that says they all have to be pv ready as well yes that's right so we went down the pv ready route

00:29:24On advice from swig um about how to kind of get the best outcomes under the future home standard that's currently being rolled out through building regulations um the fear was if we required solar panels on every roof there's the cost implications that the chair refers to but also the likelihood that developers would do that in lieu of other things that they could be doing to score the points that they need under the assessment system by requiring properties to be solar panel ready we get all of those points through those other things that they would need to do to make it up plus we're making it hopefully so attractive to residents to put solar panels on the roofs because the cost would be minimal compared to what it would otherwise be that hopefully we will get a high uptake of solar panels on roofs on top of um the other benefits that um would be delivered through the requirements of building regulations thank you it's because broadcliffe neighborhood plan requires all new build or houses to have solar panels on them so I just wanted to have

00:30:32The clarification thank you I think the point is there that neighborhood plans can get away with a bit more than we necessarily could um Councillor Ingham yes chair um I just get I'm concerned that we're putting climate change into this convenient package then we tie a bow on and say well that's done with so we can crack on with everything else now and I'm not really sure future generations will um believe we've tackled this coherently within this plan is this the first in my memory opportunity to really grasp climate change within a Local Plan and we're doing it superficially for example we're scared developers might not like some of our ideas so we're tempering them I'm not sure that's how you address climate change I think perhaps then we'd be asking for a change in the law so that we didn't have to worry about viability um though I've got some sympathy with that position Ben quite a lot of sympathy in fact but there we go I'm not sure there's anything else to say on that

00:31:50[member of the public] the only thing I'd add is I think what we've tried to do is get the best outcomes within the legislation and the system that we work within we're in this system whereby building regulations is the primary means of securing higher build quality in terms of reducing carbon footprint and that's what the government are directing us to use. What we've tried to do through the policy is add an extra layer to that to get as close to zero carbon as we possibly can, and it should be pretty damn close to zero carbon.

00:32:30But, I mean, in terms of addressing climate change as a whole, I completely agree with Canceling, and this is a drop in the ocean, these new houses that we'll be building through this plan amount It's about 1% addition to the housing stock every year. There's lots more we need to be doing outside of the Local Plan to address climate change.

00:32:49Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Any further comments on this chapter? No? Okay. We come then to Chapter 7, Adapting to Climate Change. Are there any comments on Chapter 7? I can give you page numbers, but there will be page numbers within the appendix rather than the full agenda pack. within appendix one we're on page 100 but if you're in the full agenda pack that will not be okay so agenda chapter seven then adapting to climate change are there any comments on this chapter okay then we come to chapter eight meeting housing needs which contains the policy on affordable housing which we were discussing a little bit earlier are there any comments on the content of this chapter.

00:33:58Councillor Ingham. I still think it's highly relevant that we formulate a policy for affordable housing delivery that achieves our aims and is an improvement on current attitude. Build as many houses as you can and hope some of them are affordable. And if the developer refuses to meet that target and comes up with some excuse that they can't afford it, then we'll go along with it. I think we should be far harder on any large developments regarding that.

00:34:39So if you don't meet our policies, you don't build. And I'm sure suddenly or within a few months they'll adapt to meet our needs. And I don't think our targets are hard enough. I've said before, you know, about the percentage level, also with regard to the height of buildings. You know, if you want to supply a high number of affordable homes, not necessarily dwellings, but homes that can be flats, then there's no end to it.

00:35:20Just like Exeter have failed to address that for the last 30 years haven't they there's no need for us to to um because they do things incorrectly for us to to follow that same strategy I do think we could be a lot um tougher on our requirement for affordable housing and that mixed tenure as others were saying you know it does work okay thank you Councillor Do you have any specific suggestions to make well you could I have made them before you know for example having uh tested the ground I I was told that uh 70 mixed tenure is possible you could never go higher than that because you you make the settlement unattractive you have to have at least that 30 percent of you know open value but one of the other ones which I know her the Exeter have done correctly not that it was their idea is that for example if you want to increase the number of council owned properties you could say if you've got 25 percent affordable housing requirement, you can say, right, well, if you build, say, 12% and sell

00:36:54Them to the local authority for one pound, that's acceptable. So we actually improve our own housing stock and thereby our control of affordable housing. There's quite a few things that we haven't considered although we have knowledge of it Councillor Ledger so two things I think I know the answer to the first one but why are we suggesting a lower percentage of affordable housing within Ackston sir compared to the ledger didn't come to the 22nd miss Freeman could you catch Councillor Ledger up please so this arises from the viability work that's been done on the plan um that shows that development values in Axminster are are lower than much the rest of the district such that it's not viable to deliver the 35 of affordable housing that we're proposing to deliver elsewhere and hence the the lower figure in Axminster um so it simply comes down to economics and viability of development okay um and then the second suggestion is we haven't included any we've talked a lot about a lot of different tenures but we haven't spoke

00:38:18Specifically about housing need in regards to bedrooms and then those within developments and one of the main thrusts I think when at the inception of this plan was the we've got a huge housing need for one in very small number of bedrooms and very high number of bedrooms and we haven't really addressed that throughout the plan I know that's probably been talked about our previous meeting that wasn't either mr Freeman would you like to catch Councillor Ledger up again uh yes so we did have a policy in the plan at one point which was uh seeking higher proportions of one and two bedroom homes which I think was based on discussions we'd had with members previously on this perception that that was the the need in in the district the issue we've had is that the evidence in the local housing needs assessment actually shows that the need is for 75% I think it was of all new homes to be three or four bedroom homes based on the evidence that's been produced and so I think we reached a position in a previous meeting where it was deemed better to

00:39:22Have a policy that simply refers to getting an appropriate mix of housing based on local needs evidence at that point in time that an application is coming forward so that if through neighbourhood plans or through other housing needs assessments we have more locally specific housing needs evidence and that can inform those applications coming forward and hopefully inform the housing mix that's coming forward on sites in that locality which might then provide evidence to reaffirm what I think we all feel is that the need should be for smaller properties than what we're currently seeing but as things stand the evidence shows the contrary and that the need is for more three and four bedroom units and that's partly because the local housing needs assessment obviously doesn't just look at local needs it's looking at the needs of those moving into the area from outside who might be in a better position to afford the larger properties that are available so this is about the plan needing to follow the evidence but through that previous discussion I think we reached a good middle ground whereby the policy allows for

00:40:28Consideration of other housing needs evidence that might come forward that might reaffirm our views in terms of the smaller houses Councillor Ingham sure but this is based on what Ed's just said I disagree with that evidence which I was referring to before you know how many people buy houses that have gone on to our register well obviously not but it's the housing register does that record the number of new home owners throughout East Devon? Of course it doesn't. So you're looking at a very specific number of people and you're saying that is the restriction of housing need. It isn't. That's the possible registration for housing allocation through the control of east heaven which is a section of the complete need and therefore you've ignored that the rest of the distribution you've looked at a skewed distribution in my opinion the the data I was referring to in the local housing needs assessment is the report from ors and I think you had a presentation at some point on that piece of work which was looking more at sort

00:41:52Of demographic change and the needs of the local population and those moving in, but not just those in affordable housing need, which I think is the Devon Home Choice register and data that you're referring to there, counselling them. So that's not the data that's informed that, but the way we've worded the policy does leave it open for that to be used as part of the local evidence of housing need that could inform the housing mix on a given site.

00:42:20Um so it's it's it's more it's more open in terms of using those sources of evidence I think than it was was previously and also in terms of tapping into local housing needs assessments that might be produced by napper planning groups or uh through other work that we might do in the future um so hopefully we can gather that evidence and help to have that evidence to inform the housing mix in in particular localities but at the moment all we've got is a district-wide evidence and we need to follow that evidence, even if it's counterintuitive to what we think is actually needed.

00:42:58Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Any further comments, suggestions for this chapter? Councillor Collins. Where do houses of multiple occupation fit into our policies?

00:43:19Thank you. Yes, apologies. I'm just scrolling through to the relevant policy, which I believe is HN08 on page... It starts at the bottom of page 121 in the document and talks about the conversion of existing homes and buildings and other uses to shared accommodation, including hostels and houses of multiple occupation, and then sets a criteria-based policy for those, which includes protecting the privacy of existing homes and gardens of neighbouring properties, ensuring there's good vehicle access and car parking arrangements, servicing provision,

00:44:09And looks at the living standards and communal facilities in such accommodation. So hopefully that policy covers all of the requirements for that type of accommodation. Okay, thank you, Mr. Freeman. Anything further on this chapter? Okay, in which case we come then to Chapter 9, Supporting the Economy and Town Centre. Are there any comments on this chapter, please? Councillor Jess Bailey. Oh, I think this is Chapter 9.

00:44:45It's about local shops and services. Policy SC08. It is indeed Chapter 9. So it's the second part of that policy I'd like to comment on. And I think if you look at that policy compared with what's in our current Local Plan, this one's actually worse. It's not as strong. It's a very long sentence and doesn't entirely make sense. And I think that we've got more robust policy in our current Local Plan about the viability statement.

00:45:23And our current Local Plan also has a more positive statement about the maintaining existing local shops and services. So I don't know why we're changing it just for the sake of changing it and actually I think making it worse. So our policy EN, I think it's EN14, is better. So why would we make it worse? Mr Freeman is just getting that policy wording up.

00:45:58Thank you. Did you say EN14? Oh, sorry, E14, sorry, not EN14. EN14 is control of pollution. so for instance in our current Local Plan we say um where the existing provision of a use of this nature is no longer viable and there's no market for the business as a going concern evidence will need to be presented to show the site has been actively marketed for at least 12 months at a sound realistic and viable price for the type of commercial uses and the type of use can command a vigorous economic assessment will be undertaken to establish the potential and viability of any specific concern.

00:46:46The marketing of any property or business will need to include offering to the local community for their acquisition and operation. There's nothing, yes, as reference to a viability statement, but it's nothing like as robust. Also, the existing policy makes the statement, existing retail and service provision within villages should be maintained and potential providers will be encouraged to make provision of a scale and nature appropriate to local needs.

00:47:21And if you look at our wording now, it's not great and it doesn't really make sense and it's not as good, so I don't know why we're changing it. So I think where we got to with this and there's another policy I think that talks about marketing of premises, might be about the loss of employment. land um where we've got guidance on the website about how that sort of marketing exercise should be carried out in terms of ensuring that property is marketed at a realistic value marketed in an appropriate way and he gets into quite a lot of detail about the marketing exercise that needs to go through um and I think the previous policy is sort of a halfway house in that it goes part way into explaining that and then we're relying on people seeing the guidance on the website to to understand the full extent of that I think the intention here was um to strip that out so that um we weren't sort of being seen to kind of slightly contradict ourselves between

00:48:21What's in the policy and what's in the guidance and just leave the details of the marketing to the guidance note which I think is already on the website and will probably be updated to link to to this policy and others in the plan uh whether that's sufficiently clear in the wording is drafted at the moment I'm just looking at the explanatory text it does talk about proposals must provide evidence of non-viability through marketing information and viability studies in hindsight should probably refer to um that's it twice the council will seek marketing and financial information to demonstrate this it should probably refer to in accordance with guidance on our websites at the very least um but I think that there is an issue in terms of of going into too much detail in the policy and how much we leave to the guidance I think the guidance note is is two or three pages of guidance about how to market a property under these proposals so I think that detail is better left to guidance I think perhaps what's missing is the

00:49:20Link across from the policy to that guidance rather than trying to encompass that guidance into the policy itself but yeah I just think that if I mean coming from a village where the shop has been under threat, and I would feel much more confident resisting proposals that erode the service, relying on our current Local Plan than this, even if we've got some kind of guidance somewhere else. There's nothing in here. There's no, okay, yes, we set out as well in our justification or whatever it's called, but there's nothing in here that says we must try and keep our in the actual policy that we're going to resist these proposals to get rid of our shops or anything that's going to get rid of our shops it's just it's not as robust and I I'm always very wary about oh well it says it somewhere else because developers they'll try and just say well no you're you know if you're going to if somebody's going to challenge you appeal it's no good us saying oh well we've got some guidance on our website because they'll be

00:50:31Looking at what exactly is the wording of our policy and I don't feel confident that this puts us in a very strong position and I would prefer if we've got um stronger wording in our existing plan yes fine supplement that with guidance elsewhere but don't water this down um unnecessarily and rely on something somewhere else so I would be proposing that um this needs to be significantly beefed up to protect our shops and it's not just west hill I'm sure there's lots of other shops and I just don't like it because before we know we talked in our policy about things like I'm sure we did things like post offices and it just doesn't there's no positive statement in our actual policy about our our services and shops and we just really really need to protect what we've got and not have a poor policy that can be just circumvented at the whim of a developer which is what I fear this could be I'd be interested to hear what other members think on this point I'm I kind of understand we're coming from Jess and

00:51:40I certainly agree with the sentiment but I mean to to me the the first three lines of that second section their development pro proposals that rather than the would result in the loss of existing local shops and services will be resisted where it would result in the significant or absolute loss of that facility to the community um I think it should perhaps be in in the erosion of or significant absolute loss of but but aside from that that feels pretty robust to me I think in that policy there should be a statement that says like we have at the moment existing retail and service provision within villages should be maintained I mean there's that's that's the starting point isn't it a positive statement that we want to keep those services and facilities and then go on to say yes any reduction or um any reduction or erosion or loss should be opposed but we do there should be a starting point that we want to keep them a positive statement and I also just think you know of a just saying a viability statement I can just imagine the kind of things

00:52:59That are going to be produced so can I suggest then that if we this is the wording in the current Local Plan policy e14 regarding change of use of village shops or services if I suggest then that as mr Freeman has suggested we add in explicit reference to the wider guidance about viability studies and we take that first sentence verbatim and plonk it at the start of the second section in um policy seo8 are you happy with that Councillor Bailey yeah much happier and I think as well you know it's good to have in in our current world we refer to shops post offices public houses or other services to the community and I think that's important to have those things because post offices and public I know we know probably what they mean but if if you're if you feel like your post office or public house is under threat I think it's important that that's actually spelt out just like it is in our current policy okay we can certainly plonk in and name drop a few

00:54:03Examples of community services um that's fine Councillor How not really for what you're thinking I just need to make the declaration I'm a village shop owner so I don't believe I have an interest in this if you get money even though I own a shop I don't think it affects me so having spoken to damien but I just need to make the point okay thank you Councillor How um so we got those couple of comments from Councillor Bailey uh on board thanks jess um Councillor Jung new point um no uh if are you just saying you agree with jess I agree with jess okay thank you very much we can move on there especially if it includes pups okay thank you very much any other comments on um anything in chapter nine then please Councillor Faithfull I'm just looking at seo2 and it says about intensification and extension of existing employment in the countryside what is there for new sites in the countryside I correct me if I'm wrong mr Freeman but other than the policy

00:55:13Allocations that we've set out I don't think we're encouraging new employment development in the open countryside are we because that would be unsustainable uh not new build uh no other than as farm diversification schemes which the following policy seo3 I think allows some limited new builders part of farm diversification as a whole uh we're not uh seeking to promote new build employment uses in the countryside so seo2 relates to the extension of existing employment businesses I should point out and not business parks and the conversion of existing rural buildings as well well how it is or 320 work so Watery 20 is a policy allocation so that's a different can of worms if you like we've made a policy allocation for employment development in a specific village policy SEO to in the absence of a policy saying you can build no employment anywhere you like a relevant beyond policy allocations because they're about development management decisions in the absence of a policy allocation.

00:56:35Yes, many of our allocations are currently countryside. We're taking them out of the countryside to allocate them so that they can come forward for development, which fundamentally changes the policy position. Okay, thank you, Mr. Freeman. Councillor Fernley.

00:56:52Thank you. Just a bit of clarification, again, on SEO2. It says, existing operational site boundaries of a business for intensification or the extension of that business. When you say intensification, if we're in the countryside, slide we're talking about farming presumably so are we really wanting to encourage more intensive farming which is at odds with our with climate change and trying to improve our soils and reduce flooding I'm just trying to work out what the actual word intensification means in this policy uh through chat I don't really see this policy as relating to agricultural businesses so much as other businesses that are located in the countryside we have a separate policy on sort of farm diversification which is SEO 3 and obviously much many agricultural developments are permitted developments in any event so SEO 2 would mainly be where you've got existing businesses that may have been in the countryside for for many years and within their existing site boundaries they can potentially intensify the use building you know extend existing buildings or other activities as long as it's within the existing site boundaries it's the

00:58:16Intention there how would a farming business know that that wasn't them and and that we're not trying to encourage them to intensify their businesses? Sorry, I didn't catch the start of that. How would a farming business looking at this policy wanting to intensify its farming be able to work out that that's not meant for them? We could clarify that in the wording. I mean, I think the wording refers to extension of existing employment businesses in the countryside.

00:58:56I guess farms may see themselves as employment businesses whereas the next one refers specifically to farms. Of course, the added complication to all of this is that obviously you might have a business that's based in a converted building in a farmyard that's not part of the farm. But I'm happy to take away an action and look at how we can more clearly differentiate between which policies relate to farms as opposed to which relate to existing employment businesses in the countryside.

00:59:39Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Fernley. Councillor Jung, a new point? Yeah, policy to employment development in the countryside. This goes back to an argument I had 10 years ago with the previous Local Plan. And we did put some provisos at the base of that policy. I wonder where we were going with this one. Are you making a suggestion there, Councillor Jung? When does a business part become too big is the question I've got here.

01:00:31We had it covered in the villages policy. this is going to be replaced in the village's policy so if I'm hearing you correctly this is the distinction between the expansion of an existing rural business as opposed to a business park I mean I'm just reading it again because I thought the distinction was clear somewhere that we were talking about specific businesses rather than business parks I'm struggling to see where it makes that distinction but I believe uh that was the intention was that it didn't relate to the expansion of business parks I don't know if mr dickens can yes he's nodding um I'm sure that was the intention that we didn't um change our approach in terms of that that this was for the expansion of rural businesses themselves rather than business parks so we can look at that at the same time and how we can make that clear I'm fearful of some business owners having great expansionist ideas and they have a justification that they want to expand and it would be a massive big

01:01:57Factor now that they might be a specialist car builder and they want to go into car building in a bigger way and if they've got a justification therefore we would then allow it I think we've heard that wasn't the intent of the policy so we can go away and clarify that wording and pick up that point any other comments on further issues I have already come out but Councillor Faithfull I will indulge you seo for uh resisting loss of employment sites is there anything that we can do to properly implement that because we seem to we've had all these wonderful policies in it and neighborhood plans as well and then it goes to planning committee and it just goes straight through changing like shops or whatever into housing and we lost it straight away without this seems I don't know what there is to what we can do to secure that policy in a more I don't know robust I don't know maybe because it just seems to be planning committee seems to ignore it planning committee ignore lots of things

01:03:24Mr Freeman any thoughts uh far by for me to jump to the defense of planning committee but um Obviously, their task is a difficult one, and it's to balance up the relevant planning merits of an individual case, which in some circumstances, particularly at a time when we don't have a five-year housing land supply, might lead to the balance being tilted in favour of a residential development over retaining an existing employment site.

01:03:55So it's difficult without looking at specific cases to understand the concern that's been raised but I think the policy there is a robust policy it's then for us as a council and through the relevant committees to defend that that policy or depart from policy where it's deemed appropriate um but there is always that risk of any policy that other considerations will outweigh them um and and and lead to a departure from that policy thank you mr Freeman Councillor How I wasn't going to jump to the defense of the planning committee but I was going to point out as mr Freeman has we've had appeal decisions go against us on this it is hard to maintain that momentum um when the appeal inspector says the opposite Councillor Jess bailey briefly um briefly um hn06 policy uh 118 needs tidying up please because so you've got hn06 yeah that's chapter eight are we not in that chapter it's okay go on page 118 I think it needs tidying up um so you've got the first section which talks about subdivision presumably anywhere

01:05:15Then you go on to replacement of dwellings outside the settlement boundaries but there's nothing doesn't seem to be anything about replacement of dwellings inside settlement boundaries and then right down at the bottom you have 8.27 which talks about replacement dwellings so it just needs a bit of tidying up I think have we got so I would have thought that we would have a policy on replacement dwellings inside boundaries isn't that what the first part of the policies well that's only about subdivision um I mean within settlement boundaries the principle of replacement would be acceptable anyway so I'm not sure that we necessarily need further policy coverage but I'm going to hand over to mr dickens who I think is doing the house and seven says this policy supports how so it's headed replacement dwellings and but it talks about annexes extensions alterations and outbuildings so I just I thought we did the policy first and then the justification underneath yes so jess is saying 8.27 as it is because it's out of context so I'm not quite sure how we can be but I think it's not quite like this

01:07:03It needs some tidying up and re-presentation just to make sure that it's not ambiguous. That's fine. But I think 8.27 is supposed to go with policy HNO7 on the following page. Given that 8.27 says householder annexes, extensions, alterations, and outbuildings, and that's the title of HNO7 on the next page. So officers can take that one away and look at it.

01:07:26Thank you. Any other issues in Chapter 9, please? no okay thank you members we come then to chapter 10 which for the benefit of people who have notes with policy numbers is policies that begin ds any comments here chapter 10 starts on page 153 of the appendix not of the agenda pack high quality design indeed no okay any comments then on Chapter 11, Sustainable Transport and Communications, which starts on page 161.

01:08:32No? Okay. Chapter 12 then, Our Outstanding Landscape and [member of the public], you're on notice. We will go through the green wedges in a moment please, which I believe are in this chapter. No? Okay. In which case then, [member of the public], can you take us on a tour of East Devon's proposed green wedges and then we will move on to the next chapter if there are no issues. Alphabetically, I don't know.

01:09:03What order have you got it in? I've got a map there all over the place. Good chat between you all.

01:12:19Okay. So that's the Limston plus, where's that to the north? Exton, one to the north, and then Exmouth Limston to the south. Matt can you just move the map south slightly please just so we can see it on the edge of Exmouth thank you so that's green wedge between Limston and Exmouth yes the green wedge is in like turquoise kind of color the land that is south of that green wedge which is in white all of that or a lot of that is in National Trust ownership and that's protected in some way but I did wonder why that wasn't included in the green wedge but because we adopted the green wedges from the last plan and it wasn't there yeah but but it's also in you haven't got the coastal protection area on there is as well have you yeah so yeah that's a lot clearer now okay are there any other green wedges that folks want to see kiss and Mary please Matt take us on a tour of East Devon well Jeff hasn't raised any issues nor is anybody else with the one that we've just

01:14:12Seen so Councillor Ingham can we go back to previously agreed it's a good point actually yes we have previously agreed these based on the maps that came on the 22nd well there's a point in making sure that officers have done what we asked them to with any amendments I suppose yes I think the purpose of the exercise was to show you this is the fundamentals of an interactive map which will form the proposals map for the Local Plan and part of the consultation so just see how we've we've plotted them on on on the system really in check that it aligns with your understanding as to what was agreed um but this this follows the resolution this this follows the resolutions the committee had previously made with regards but we had no choice did we really because I know uh Councillor Jung and myself have said that extending the green wedge would be appropriate um up along um north of Hulham road you can see that straight line that It goes from the corner of the Exmouth Green Wedge up towards the common.

01:15:30We've said that for a number of years, but you've always politely, totally ignored that. And Jeff's point is that the National Trust land, we know that there are powers that be that have a mind for us to develop on there because there was, do you remember, meetings with Network Rail who told us, well, we're going to put in an extra station there because they want to develop there.

01:16:03So, you know, it's all very well saying that there is a coastal protection or preservation area that covers that. But we need to do belt and braces, in my opinion. And here's another opportunity to make sure that that's what happens. But I realise that not all the officers on this council want that to happen, as you can see by the allocations on that map. Sorry, Councillor Ingham, correct me if I'm wrong.

01:16:35Did you just say all of the officers in this authority want to see that area of white land that Councillor Jung was speaking about a minute ago developed? No. What I'm saying is we know that through network rails announcements in a meeting here that they wanted to, for example, put in a station between Exmouth and Nymphston, basically. And why would you want to do that unless there was a mine to develop immediately adjacent to that?

01:17:16And they were saying, it's just a matter of time before that happens. Now, if it's our will to protect the interests of the people of Exmouth, then we would extend that green wedge and say, well, we know that's owned by the National Trust, but we know how important that land designation is to the community of Exmouth. Perhaps we should extend that green wedge. But I don't think officers of this council, or some of them, the key ones who will take this decision, are interested in doing that in the same way as they haven't listened to Councillor Jung who, like myself, thinks that the Exmouth-Limstone-Green Wedge should be extended up just north of Holland Road up towards the Pebblebed Heath or maybe a SANGs era absolutely against a blank brick wall so I don't see that there's any point discussing this because there's no mind to listen to what local representatives are saying you're welcome to make a proposal if you like Councillor Ingham I propose chair that we extend the green wedge um down south from the line of summer lane

01:18:41But down to the estuary down towards eczema so that the land that's currently in the ownership of National Trust will become a green wedge and also that land east of that green wedge follows the line up along Holland Road towards the Pebblebed Heath, that wedge up there, so that we don't have the same predicament over the next 10 years that everyone's been worried about and then has it been exacerbated by what we've done within that green reg already okay so I'm going to do three things one I will look for a seconder Councillor Jung do you wish to say anything your microphone Ben please I'd love to see more protection in the areas that cancer ingham is suggesting Also, we did discuss the playing field on Courtlands, which is in the bright green. I presume that is designated as a playing field. And I wonder if it could be green wedge and playing field. But I know there's a lot of protection on a playing field anyway.

01:20:12Mr. Freeman, can you take off the playing field designation? I think we'll probably see that it is also Green Wedge. We definitely said it should be, so we can amend that. That's fine. That's easy. Okay, we have a proposal then on the table. I'm going to Mr. Hunter to ask if it's... Again, are we revisiting a decision there? Yes. By seeking to amend the boundary of the Green Wedge?

01:20:45Is your name mr hunter Councillor Bailey no I just wanted to say that we're doing we've been told advised not to do this yes yeah and what happened earlier is that you made a proposal Councillor Ferney seconded it and then I sought legal advice so I'm being consistent and doing exactly that mr hunter please okay mr Freeman is going to keep checking that members on the

01:22:07Assumption that the motion has been validly made I've got to say I don't think either of those two areas should be green wedge. I don't think they're preventing coalescence between Limston and Exmouth. I think if we did that we're undermining the entire policy and putting at risk not only that specific green wedge but all of our green wedges quite frankly if we take that step but that's my view. Councillor Jung? I would agree with you with the North Holland Road sections because there's not a community the other side of Holland Road until you get hit Woodbury, which is miles away.

01:22:49But with the coastal bit, which is the National Trust sort of triangle, I would say that is coalescence. I will not be supporting this because we haven't had any papers about it. and we're at we sat here all day and there's hardly any committee members left I know we're still core it but I really don't like doing something really radical and different on the so I won't be supporting it Councillor How um like Councillor Bailey I won't be supporting it for the reason this hasn't been to consultation I know it will as part of regulation 19 but at the same time I think it's just a bit ridiculous added to the fact it's national trust land you know are we really saying national trust is going to become one of the biggest developers in in in the area you know I think you need to be really careful about what you're hoping for and everything else out of the fact you can't call that coalescence with that land you just can't okay um mr Freeman doesn't think this decision has actually been beat before us so the proposal

01:24:06Is validly made and constitutional uh so the only person who hasn't spoken to it then is Councillor Fernley do you wish to speak before I take us to a vote no okay in which case then all in favour of the proposal by Councillor Ingham seconded by Councillor Jung to extend the green wedge to the the green wedge between Limston and Exmouth to the northeast along Holland Road and to the south into the area bounded currently by the green wedge the estuary and the settlement boundary of Exmouth all those in favour of that proposal please that's two all those against that's four so the proposal falls thank you very much members are there any other comments on actually are there any other green wedges that folks would like to see before we move to Reg 19 before we move on that's down the estuary map we're going to have a collection at the end of the meeting for a compass for [member of the public] sorry matt um so those those are the green wedges around exton I think mike wanted to see uh

01:25:23Clissa you know you don't okay cool anybody else anything else pressing that folks want to see did we have um baltimore has that still got one I don't think baltimore does baltimore have a green wedge mr diggins yeah can we see as previously resolved we've carried over the the green wedges from the previous Local Plan um so apart from the allocations that have subsequently been made there you go there's Baltimore and the Cliffs Valley Regional Park this must be fascinating viewing on YouTube okay very good okay thank you any other comments on chapter 12 No, I think the West Hill Lottery one is the same as it is, as far as the exclusion.

01:26:20Thank you. Okay. In which case then, Chapter 13, Outstanding Biodiversity and Geodiversity. Councillor Bailey. Sorry. Policy, it's on page 187, I think, and it's about the grade of agricultural land and development on agricultural land. I'm just trying to get it up. I think that, again, a bit like with the policy on local shops and facilities, I'm concerned that we're actually weakening it in comparison with our current Local Plan because our current Local Plan has a policy that uses the word exceptional and that seems to have been deleted from this draft Local Plan and I think that we should make it either the same or better.

01:27:18Is it OL11? sorry I'm just trying to scan through so I don't know if you've got it up there but um oh thank you um so I think in our current Local Plan it refers to in exceptional circumstances and I just think it's generally a bit weaker than it is in our our current Local Plan and I'd prefer to see it as as strong as our existing one if not better please so just reading the existing policy off mr Freeman's screen um I think the difference is that the word exceptionally appears in that first sentence after the word granted but otherwise I think it's identical that sentence pretty much yeah it is so we can add the word exceptionally after the word granted that's fine thank you any further comments on 12 council of faithful can you email it please If it's a typo, just so we don't get bogged down.

01:28:30Okay, Chapter 13 then, Outstanding Biodiversity and Geodiversity, which for anyone tracking policy numbers is policies beginning PB.

01:28:52Okay, Chapter 14 then, Open Space and Sports and Recreation, which is policies starting OS. Chapter 15, Outstanding Historic Environment, Policies Starting HE, Chapter 16, Community Facilities, Policies Starting CF, if I can read, and then anything at all on Chapters 17 or 18, which are Implementation and Monitoring and Glossary of Terms or on either of the appendices, which are hopefully relatively uncontroversial.

01:29:42No, okay. I hear no comments on those then. So having been through the whole plan then, I will move from the chair recommendations one through three and recommendation one as amended by Mr. Freeman.

01:30:03So can we go to, we cannot go to HDMI 2 currently unless we pass the cable down. Plug it back in. Councillor Ingham. Is it not possible to take each recommendation one at a time? We can do each of them one at a time, yeah. I was just going to propose them together. So I will propose recommendation one as it is shown on the screen there, and then I believe recommendations two and three are unchanged.

01:30:31Okay, I will propose those three then from the chair, and Councillor Ingham has requested we take those individually. So we'll start then with recommendation one as shown on the screen. All those in favor, please. That's five. Those against, that's one, and there will be no abstentions then because that's everyone. So that is carried. Recommendation two, all those in favour, please. That's five. Those against, that's one, and no abstentions then.

01:31:13And recommendation three, all those in favour, please. That's unanimously carried. Okay, thank you very much, members. That brings us to the end of the 4 and 5 we did earlier as part of Chapter 5 because they were on specific sites. Okay, thank you very much then, members. That is everything we have or will have soon. The Regulation 19 version of the plan will keep you updated on the timeline for that.

01:31:43And that's the end of the meeting. Thank you very much. No meeting on Friday. We'll discuss that in a minute. This meeting is closed.