Strategic Planning Committee, 4 February 2025

00:06:37Okay. Good morning, everyone. To get us started, a health and safety announcement. There is 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 also make sure all phones are either muted or switched off.

00:06:59To start the meeting proper then good morning everyone and welcome to this Strategic Planning Committee meeting uh on tuesday the 4th of february 2025 the first if you can believe it of this year so happy new year everyone if I've not seen you um I'm your chair Councillor Todd olive and 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 and wendy harris democratic services officer 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 a microphone or your comments will not be recorded we will now start the meeting by doing a roll call of committee members and declaration of interests wendy thank you thank you chair I'll start with yourself Councillor Olive I am here and I have no declarations at this time thank you vice chair Councillor Howe I'm here and no declarations that I can think of thank you Councillor Brian bailey at present wendy no

00:08:04Declarations thank you Councillor Jess bailey present um I'm a Devon county Councillor Um and they have got various sites that are part of uh the Local Plan but I don't think we're going to be discussing sites so I don't think we're going I'll need to make any declaration of interest thank you uh Councillor Blakey will be arriving shortly uh we have Councillor Bethany collins present and no declarations other than the usual lobbying thank you Councillor Davey present and I've been lobbied uh particularly on uh EXMO20 uh so just a bit of lobbying there thank you site selection Councillor Fernley present um and again lots of lobbying for EXMO20. no declarations otherwise thank you Councillor Hayward present thank you uh no declarations Thank you. Councillor Jung?

00:09:14I'm present, and yes, I've been lobbied on a number of applications, especially ECMAS 20. Councillor Levine? Present, and I've been lobbied about ECMAS 20. Excuse me, when you have to say, I was lobbied as well. Shall I say, on behalf of everybody? Yes. And Councillor Parr. Present, no declarations.

00:09:53Thank you. Can I just ask the non-committee members if they have any declarations as well? No.

00:10:00Thank you. Back to you, Chair. Okay. Thank you, Wendy. Agenda item one, then minutes of the previous meetings held on the 29th of October and 11th of December 2024. Does anybody have any comments on either of these minutes? No. Okay. In which case, then, as chair, I will move those minutes as true and accurate records. Members, please raise your hand if you're in support. Yeah, that's carried.

00:10:30Thank you very much. Agenda item two, apologies. I have councillors Ingham and Colin Brown, and Kevin Blakey will be joining us in a little bit. Any others received? No others received. Any apologies from the floor? No. Okay.

00:10:49[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.]

00:11:38At the first strategic planning stages, local residents would not have realised their ability to object. When looking online, maps and boundaries were inaccurate and areas were marked in red as if not being considered for development. It went through this stage against advice of planners. It has been confirmed since December that the entrance will be on the B3179, meaning that potentially 2,000 extra cars will try to get out onto an already very busy road with disastrous results. There are already at least five treacherous turnings out onto this road and I don't believe any thought has gone into the scenario of another junction churning out thousands of cars towards Budleigh. During last year there were a number of accidents on the Exmouth Road and B3179 and with no other roads being available to get into or out of Budleigh all roads then became gridlocked for hours on end. This was a frequent and very dangerous occurrence. Thousands more cars would cause absolute havoc in this area. The proximity of the development on the boundary of Woodby Commons Pebblebed Heath, a unique European designated SAC site and SSSI, has been totally

00:12:35Ignored. The immense light pollution and noise pollution of a new community right on top of a steep hill has not been mentioned or considered in any way. Many local individual planning applications have been refused due to proximity to Woodby Common, home to a number of rare bird species including Dartford, Warborough and Nightjar. It comes as a huge surprise then that no consideration has been made of a thousand more houses and mass footfall even closer to the heats which would destroy this rare area councillors have confirmed the minimal buffer zone would be used for recreational purposes meaning they could and would use it for commercial building right up to the main road disastrous for the area wildlife and joining axmouth and Budleigh with barely a gap I would plead with the committee to reconsider this type site as a tickle boxes answer to providing houses as it has not had the time allocation or indeed representation from relevant local or national bodies for sensible consideration. The site has not been visited by councillors who voted it through or even heard of by some councillors. As our representatives, official

00:13:33Guardians of East Devon and experts in this field, I would urge you at this strategic stage and with the changes made to the site entrance to reconsider taking a large area of land out of agricultural production at a time when food security is one of our most important issues. This makes it a totally different development and needs further consideration. Furthermore, the very real potential for the development to cause mass flooding to the already stretched Withercombrook, the impact on an already very overloaded sewerage system constantly polluting the sea and the very detrimental effect it will have on our local services must warrant more strategic consideration. This is an unsuitable site which is not viable, sensible or practical from a road, environmental or infrastructure point of you to have a rushed through ill-considered development on anyone's conscience would be tragic thank you thank you we come then next to I'm sorry could somebody ah melanie's going to speak up there anyway Councillor Martin thank you chair good morning committee um I'm here today regarding the tracked changes to EXMO20 and to and my comments to those residents in my ward

00:14:47Who reside in the Noah Hill, Dalditch, Lane and Tintong area. I'm aware that the Local Plan is at Regulation 19 stage and that as ward member for Neighbouring Budleigh I can have input into any future planning applications but it would be remiss of me not to inform the committee of my grave concerns about the site and its access. Firstly, there has been discussion about accessing this site from the B3179, a rural road that is dark and winding with a speed limit of 60 miles an hour.

00:15:20It has one of the sharpest 90-degree bends that I have come across in East Devon, which with today's blinding halogen car lights makes it extremely dangerous. The road has no paths, and there is no safe place to cross to the common. I have sat in strategic planning meetings and seen potential housing sites with safer roads rejected. I cannot understand why the idea of having an access onto this dangerous road is even being considered.

00:15:49Secondly, I'm very concerned about the effects this access will have on the SSSI, which is a mere road's width away. As difficult as it is to drive down this road in the dark, it is this dark sky landscape that provides a habitat for our wildlife to live and flourish. These habitats would be significantly disturbed if the Highway's Authority were to install street lighting. To summarise, I cannot see how you can protect the dark landscape of the SSSI and install a safe vehicle access into this site, but I will watch with interest how this progresses.

00:16:26Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Martin. Thomas Shillito. first homes this policy enables you to ensure that some of the homes built are for local people only Councillor How you had said the lpa had no mechanism to do it I found it all of you please read the policy debate it and get that bit mandatory in your Local Plan right the changes to EXMO20 this site was bad when it was considered that he last stage and outright rejected then, the latest clarifications make it bloody awful. This is no longer an Exmouth site when it's a couple of miles drive just to get back to the outskirts of Exmouth. This is now a Budleigh site and that sits at complete odds with your settlement hierarchy. Finally, as of Thursday, you have a Habitats Regulation Assessment that considers site allocation. You now have a report that can permit you to start considering site selection in accordance with the HABs regs and determine least worse selecting avoidance over those requiring mitigation as per the regs.

00:17:41Most local authorities do not get their HRI just weeks before intending to go to Reg 19 as the two need to marry up. There are two impacts in the HRI highlighted as concerning in the plan water quality for the axe valley and air quality for the East Devon heaths the former is already restricting significant development and there is still no viable mitigation strategy however there is no mitigation strategy for the latter you must consider which site allocations will cause increased air pollution on the heaths roads most notably the B3179 failed the test at the point where the main site access for the large allocation, EXMO20, is proposed.

00:18:21I'm not sure I can be any clearer. Therefore, the plan has conflict between the EXMO20 site and policy PBO4. Development will not be permitted where there is potential for increased vehicle numbers adversely affecting the Pebble Bed's Heath, applying a precautionary approach. This, in turn, has conflict with your housing target policy. Can you see how the plan unravels? Section 1 of the Local Plan Procedure Guide states the LPA should rigorously assess a plan for soundness before it is published under Reg 19.

00:18:50This should be the plan you intend to submit to the Planning Inspectorate for examination. This is a key premise. The purpose of preparing a plan prior to Reg 19 is to address all the necessary matters as far as possible and not to defer them to future updates. This is really important to understand, as at Reg 18 stage you can make amendments relatively easily. Once you go to Reg 19 consultation, if you need to make subsequent changes, it gets a whole lot more complicated.

00:19:18Your Habitats Regulation Assessment states that there is not sufficient certainty to rule out adverse effects on the integrity of internationally protected sites. You must ensure that the plan is sound and meets all the necessary legal requirements prior to Reg 19 consultation. publication. The Habs regs refer to you as a competent authority for the sake of the residents and wildlife of East Devon. Please do not make that ironic. Thank you. Any questions?

00:19:53You don't get to take questions [member of the public] afraid. Councillor Horne from Budleigh Salterton Town Council. Good morning.

00:20:05Good morning everyone. I'm here representing Budleigh Salterton Town Council as already stated. We sort of prepared a statement yesterday which I would just like to read out.

00:20:20Thank you for the opportunity to be heard today. We would like to share our thoughts regarding the proposed development known as EXMO20 located adjacent to the B3179, or as it is known locally, the Ting Tong. Budleigh-Saltontown Council, along with its residents, would like to be included in this consultation. the main access to the development is 2.1 miles from Budleigh-Salterton and much further to Exmouth at 4.2 miles.

00:20:50We understand this is a strategic planning meeting and that there are many factors to consider in the decision-making process. However, Budleigh-Salterton Town Council would like it recorded that we wish to be part of any decision-making moving forward given the planned increase in residential housing that would happen near Budleigh-Salterton and ensuing pressure this will place on local infrastructure and services, particularly with the proposed access onto the B3179, as already stated by previous speakers.

00:21:23Additionally, we would like to understand where the employment opportunities for the residents of this development will come from. Members feel strongly that this should not be seen as solely an Exmouth decision. We believe this is a collective decision, and Budleigh Salterton respectfully requests to be included in any future decisions regarding the development of EXMO20.

00:21:47Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you for that, Councillor Horne. My list is in a different order. I think lastly we have a statement from Councillor Fitzgerald to be read out. [member of the public] needs to go as well. He was at the top. Sorry, [member of the public]. Nice try.

00:22:17Good morning. My name is [name removed]. I live in Ting Tong, and you all know where that is now. It was at your meeting on the 3rd of September last year, in 17 minutes you decided, against the advice of your professional officers, to allocate 210 acres of farmland between Budleigh and Exmouth. You may recall it happened as a result of manoeuvring by some councillors who spoke and voted, against the advice of your legal officer, Mr Hunter.

00:22:50I know Councillor Ingham isn't here today. At that meeting, you, Mr Freeman, advised the committee that further work would be necessary to ascertain the viability of EXMO20. This has resulted in preparing an accurate map of the site. The one you decided on was incorrect. They had to ascertain what the boundaries for the development could actually be in light of the proximity to the Pebblebed Heaths. And lastly, you had to engage with Devon County Council Highways to try and work out how on earth you were going to get 2,000 cars in and out.

00:23:21On the redline version of today's additional documents, Agenda Item 2B, DCC advised you the only viable way was from the 3179, the already dangerous and congested road that leads from Budleigh to Woodbury. By continuing with the EXMO20, you have opened yourselves up to a series of risks. Firstly, you have an environmental risk. The proximity to the Pebblebed Heaths, the SSSI, the SAC sites, has already forced officers to curtail the area.

00:23:52You will know the RSPB is taking an interest, and Natural England has still not yet been properly consulted. Should either decide to object to this proposal, the cost to the council, both financial and reputational, will be significant. There is, secondly, a financial risk. Devon County Council has told you access will be from the 3179. The extension at Deenan Way is no longer of any use. The cost to upgrade the 3179 through Ting Tong, Hullam Junctions and onto Woodbury will be in the millions.

00:24:27This will be unbudgeted. You must also consider the financial risk to developers. They will have to build a road at least half a kilometre long from the pebble bed boundary. They will have to create a housing estate, which is 7.5 kilometres from the facilities in Exeter, in Exmouth, rather. Who will want to live there? Who is going to buy these houses? This is a high-cost, high-risk site. Developers will have the choice of much easier sites in Devon.

00:24:57The last risk is the political risk you open up, and this is the very risk you repeatedly say you wish to avoid. If EXMO20 is included in the plan but is not viable for environmental or financial reasons, you will fail your housing obligations handed by the government. You cannot control the environmental and financial risks, and you may well end up losing control of planning in East Devon.

00:25:21I therefore urge you, revisit those sites that should have been included. Councillor Hall tells us there were 318 houses turned down by the time you got to EXMO20. And finally, at minus 8, the facts you were presented with on the 3rd of September have changed. I say to you all, have the courage also to change. Reject TXMO 20 and make East Devon, as you claim, an outstanding place.

00:25:49I owe you 25 seconds. Sorry, Mr. I think we'll leave. Thank you, [member of the public]. Red? Right? okay thank you very much everyone um I've asked mr Freeman just to pick up some of the points that have been mentioned when it comes to uh agenda item eight to which all of those public speaking comments uh related so we will circle back around um in the meantime though uh the rest of the agenda. Agenda item 5. Sorry? I've forgotten Charlotte, haven't I? Wendy, Councillor Fitzgerald's statement. Thank you, Chair. So her statement is regards to EXMO20. This site for 700 homes was allocated in the latter planning stages as the suggestion of members and against officers' recommendation.

00:26:46Changes made to the draft plan since December means that car access to the site can no longer come from Withycombe but must all come from the B3179, the main road to the north-west which skirts the Bicton and Dowditch Common in my ward. The access point is on a dangerous stretch of road with no pedestrian access. Indeed, following the Regulation 18 consultation, the northwestern built-up area boundary for Budleigh was moved back to the line of the B3179 such that development immediately to the northwest of the town could not take place within this planned period. This was done precisely because there is no footpath along the road and having tried to walk it myself before I can confirm it is very dangerous. The B3179 forms the border of the Pebblebed Heath's triple s I which enjoys one of the highest levels of protection of all designations building a major access point right beside these this triple s I and potentially laying down car parks and sports pitches in the space occupying the 400 meters development buffer which would all no doubt require lights is likely to damage it I feel that I have been taken by

00:28:06Surprised by the late allocation of this site and just as importantly by the change of access arrangements just before it goes to regulation 19 consultation leaving no possibility of a rethink. Evidently this has been an unintended consequence of rushing to allocate sites at the very end of the process and I can see how this site would have been particularly attractive due to its size however the Budleigh and east Budleigh town and parish councils should have been consulted given where we are I will do my best to help this council mitigate adverse effects to nature and address the clear road safety issues posed by this site as we go forward thank you okay thank you wendy and uh Councillor Jess bailey for reminding me um agenda item five then matters of urgency there are none and agenda item six confidential or exempt items again there are none which brings us then to agenda item seven changes arising from the new national planning policy framework mr Freeman some good news for us to start 2025 um thank you chair I'm not sure

00:29:21About good news but uh good morning uh members um yeah so this first report uh is just making members aware of some of the changes coming about from the new national planning policy framework I think when we were last sat here on the 11th of december we were anticipating the new national planning policy framework and ironically it came out the next day um and uh it did include a few surprises um obviously we knew in terms of housing numbers that they were going to increase uh during the consultation it was proposed that our housing numbers would increase to 1146 homes per year and that we would have to publish the Regulation 19 plan within one month of the new National Planning Policy Framework and have a housing requirement figure that was no more than 200 homes less than the standard method figure.

00:30:13What actually came out on the 12th of December was that our higher housing need figure is actually 1,188 homes per year. and to be within the transitional arrangements we need to be within 80 percent of that standard figure so we needed to plan for 950 homes per year whereas the plan that you agreed the previous day was for 946 homes per year so leaving us four homes per year short so you'll see when we come on to the next item that we have have sought to address that in terms of the numbers within the plan we also now have a longer period to comply with the transitional arrangements so we actually have until the 12th of march to publish the regulation 19 version of the plan however it's on the agenda for you today the other thing that stems from that is in terms of our five-year housing land supply position because we need to calculate that in relation to the new standard method figure and we also now need to build in a five percent buffer which we didn't have to

00:31:20Previously so that does leave us down to a five-year housing land supply figure of 2.97 years so quite a significant shortfall there which obviously brings the tilted balance back into consideration in terms of decisions on planning applications and significant weight needing to be given to that housing land supply position linked that it should also be noted as anticipated the four-year supply position was removed so we can no longer rely on that linked to that is also a forthcoming requirement for plans that are out of date to actually demonstrate a six-year housing land supply position apologies they're getting complicated with these different positions but um so from the 1st of july next year we will actually need to demonstrate a six-year housing land supply position um and uh that will continue because even once we've adopted the new Local Plan because it was progressed under the transitional arrangements we will continue to need to demonstrate a six-year housing land supply position um so something to be mindful of there for the future obviously we not only need to boost our

00:32:36Housing and supply position to get to a five-year housing and supply position for adoption of the Local Plan we also need to get to a six-year housing and supply position um because of those new provisions in the plan uh but more of that in the next item uh I've included in the report the tables so you can see the summary in table a and table b in the report of how we get to the 2.97 years um worth noting that as a committee you asked me to report the previous housing monitoring report to planning committee in the meantime the NPPF came out so I have actually reported the updated tables to planning committee so that they are already aware of that for decision making purposes um but um due to the sequence of events it needs to come to yourselves as well uh to to agree that that be published and considered um another couple of few um main changes in the national planning policy framework I should stress this isn't comprehensive I've just picked out the main things that affect ourselves obviously there's lots of changes in there about

00:33:40Greenbelt in particular but we don't have any greenbelt in East Devon so I've not uh not covered those in in this report um but in terms of affordable housing it's notable that the government's removed the requirement for at least 10% of the total number of homes on major sites to be delivered as affordable home ownership products and that 25% be delivered as first homes. So this is in fact good news because it gives us greater potential to deliver types of affordable housing that actually meet the needs of local residents, which as members will be aware is primarily for homes to rent. So removing those requirements about affordable home ownership products gives us greater flexibility to deliver to the needs we know exist in the district the other good news is in terms of planning application fees well I say good news for us in terms of our budget keeping perhaps not so good if someone wants to make an application for an extension to their home because the application fee is going to increase from £258 to £528 this is to ensure

00:34:45That those fees actually cover the cost of dealing with those applications which they fall significantly short of at the moment the government is if there are other tweaks to the fees I should stress as well associated with that and the government has also announced its intention to bring forward measures through the planning and infrastructure bill to enable local fee setting for planning applications on an entirely cost recovery basis so that will no doubt help in terms of future budget setting for the council so those are the main things to highlight in terms of the new national planning policy framework if I just go back to the recommendations recommendation one is that members note the changes made and the implications for the council for production of the new Local Plan and to note the updated five-year housing and supply position and agree that the revised summary tables included in the report are published on the website and used to inform decision making on planning applications thank you chair okay thank you mr Freeman and I'm sure

00:35:47You meant to say we don't have any green belt yet of course um that that was tongue tongue in tongue in cheek um members this has been fairly well rehearsed so hopefully a uh short discussion but uh coming outside of committee first Councillor Faithfull thank you chair well first I'd like to declare an interest I didn't realize at the time uh I've had communication and lobbying in relation to autri 20 um six year housing land supply how are we supposed to achieve this do we have to go through the last six months all over again um we have to grant planning applications it's the really short answer to that question because that's how we increase our housing land supply and the new Local Plan will help by putting more sites into the pipeline but fundamentally we achieve a greater housing land supply by giving permission for more housing secondly um I don't know if you're aware there's a different government department I think it's to do with defro or something they want they're doing is it consultation on land use um I don't know how

00:37:05That can impact us can we sort of show that you know we need this land for agriculture and food production and things thank you chair mr Freeman monday's news have you had a chance to have a look at it yet uh thank you chair um yes I believe council faithfuls uh referring to the consultation on uh the land use framework um which is um I think it is defra or whatever defra is called these days um um and essentially it's it's slightly separate from the planning system in the sense that it's looking at what are the uh sort of prime uses of of land and looking at parcels of land in terms of what uh they should be used for in terms of things like high grade agricultural land land that could potentially be used for nature recovery projects and things like this so it's a more sort of proactive way of looking at um the use of land outside of the planning system which is obviously more uh sort of developer and landowner led in terms of what people want to do

00:38:06And applying for permission um so we're looking at that consultation how we might respond to that um I don't think it has any bearing on what we're doing today in terms of the Local Plan um but we obviously need to look at that uh I would say that there are a number of consultations coming out from government on on various issues in terms of national scheme of delegation for planning committees um looking at how habitat mitigation is delivered and how that could be delivered on a national scale um and things like this so there's a number of these things whether they're working papers or formal consultations coming out we do look at all of those and and respond either through a report through the committee or in the delegated powers in discussion with with the chair so we will look at that and make a considered response Councillor Barlow welcome back thank you chair I'm always good to be back um 2.97 uh years on the five year supply if we were to go to the six year when we go to six year I presume that's not going to make it

00:39:09Better where will that would bring us down to I think we stay at 2.97 we just have to get to six rather than five if I've understood correctly mr Freeman so that the methodology for calculating how many we need in a year doesn't change we just need to have an extra year any further questions inside or outside I saw Councillor Davey hand first to slow Councillor Lorine thank you chair so it's just because I'm in front of him I presume we're confident that change to the planning application fees isn't a misprint um since it only involves switching around two digits um no I'm quite sure uh that's all right um I'm interested in the local character and design coding um I think we've all uh made reference to the the difficulty of classifying what is beautiful um and it was never a very good um term to use but um I'd be interested to know what the changes in terms of design are in that case, and particularly what the effect of deleting the reference to local character is likely to be.

00:40:36I wonder if [member of the public] could just comment on that. Thank you. Through you, Chair, I mean, I think the reference to local character is largely in relation to higher density developments and impacts on local character. I think they're trying to obviously maximise the use and efficient use of land, which is something we obviously need to be mindful of ourselves, given how in short supply it is these days.

00:41:05So having said that, I mean, I think you still need to have some regard to the local character of an area in terms of obviously policy making and decision making on planning applications. So I think some of these changes to wording are about trying to take some of the subjectivity out of it in terms of where it's worded. Things like beauty and beautiful, I think you identify yourself as a very subjective term and trying to make it less subjective and a bit more objective.

00:41:36I don't think it's necessarily a fundamental change because we try and be fairly objective about it. But I think where we need to go with that as an issue is in terms of resurrecting the work we've previously done on the district design guide and bringing that through. So that's something that we've just not had capacity to do because of the Local Plan, but it's something that we need to resurrect.

00:42:04Quite a lot of work was done a couple of years ago on that, and that will hopefully help to give greater guidance in terms of what we think of the character of the air what's important about the local character to inform decision making but obviously we need to make sure that complies with the new NPPF and then we need to look at things like design coding in terms of the major allocations coming forward obviously there's lots of work going on as you'll be aware on master planning of the second new town that's coming through the plan but we also need to do work on some of the other major allocations that are coming through the plan in terms of design codes and master plans as well um so lots of work to be done it doesn't all end with with the plan it's um just another step on on the journey to delivering the development that we need in the district really but hopefully that helps if I'm remembering right that clause in the mppf they took out that ollie was specifically referencing there was to do with um historic

00:43:04Areas in in urban conurbations specifically I think I honestly can't recall without checking exactly what the reference was I think I think it was it was about taking into account historic character where applications were looking to densify and so in cities like Bath comes to mind I suppose where you've got areas of particular this particular historic architectural significance making sure that efforts to densify and increase housing land supply that way um weren't compromising that I think that's what it was about um but who knows I might have just made that up um Councillor Levine then Councillor Blakey thank you chair I'm a little worried about the fact we're struggling to meet the housing land supply 2.97 it left to go to five into six I know we've got a stepped approach to building in the new Local Plan but we're dependent on developers coming to us with planning applications and it's a human nature being what it is it's a great temptation for the developers to have a stepped approach to make sure that we are under the six-year or five-year housing land

00:44:20Supply so developers are in the driving seat of the housing market rather than us and that seems to me what the government is trying to do to make sure that we have no power to decide where we can or can't build and to me that's a not a terribly nice development I think that was more rhetorical than question but I can't say I disagree Councillor Levine um so thank you Councillor Blakey yeah thank you chair first things first can I confirm I'm here please which you may well good um and I have no declarations of interest Can I also ask the public speakers, were they all on the subject of Expo 2.0?

00:45:11Lovely, okay, thank you. Now to the question itself. Page 38 under affordable housing, a misunderstanding on my part perhaps. The commentary said that, let me just find the correct wording, regarding the 25 percent delivered first home delivering first homes it says although the option to deliver first homes remains now am I right in thinking that this is not an option it's actually an obligation and is that the right wording or have I misunderstood um so essentially the obligation has been removed but it's still there as a as a form of affordable housing that can be delivered I don't envisage that it will be because it's not been well received by the development industry or by local authorities to be honest um I think uh the development industry doesn't like delivering them um and it doesn't meet our need so um I think we can essentially say first homes will probably not be coming forward certainly not in great numbers in East Devon Councillor Jung is that a hand up or are you fiddling with your glasses Councillor Jung

00:46:35Yeah I can't get my head around this six year supply ask me what I'm going to be doing in six years time I haven't a clue ask developers how many houses they're going to be building in six years time I don't think they've got a clue ask anyone who wants to buy a house in six years time they wouldn't have a clue so how do we predict a six-year land supply and I just wonder if we could challenge that with government in in some way because it is basically sticking your finger in the air isn't it it is it can't be much more than that because planning applications are set for three years and then builders build out from that time and from the large applications that I'm aware of. It is all dependent on the market demand at that time. And no one knows what's going to happen to the economy in the next year, in six years' time. So I think we should be challenging that if in some way which will help us out possibly in our calculations

00:48:00Um through chair I think the five-year housing land supply has always been a bit of a blunt instrument and making a six-year housing land supply um that doesn't help the situation as you say I suspect most local authorities will not currently have a five-year housing and supply position I suspect they're all still calculating and publishing it but I'm keeping an eye out in the professional press because there's regular charts of different people's positions I think even before the new NPPF it was only something like something like a half or two-thirds that did have a five-year housing land supply I suspect with the changes that would drop dramatically um as as to writing to government um obviously if members want to do that I'm happy to draft the letter um but we've obviously made uh various comments in the past through consultations and even outside of consultations about the housing and supply position the housing numbers I don't think we've been been heard uh I know other local authorities have done likewise um but we can but try fundamentally I think it's clear this government's policy is is to build

00:49:14Houses um you know one and a half million in in this parliament and to do that they are putting policies and provisions in place to ensure that that happens which involves stacking the cards perhaps slightly more in favour of development than they were before can I come back um we can but try and um I think there's a change of government since we we last sent a letter that was ignored uh so maybe this time it might not be was that a proposal Councillor Jung seconded by Councillor Fernley I think there's also a letter waiting to go that I proposed some months ago for the new government so maybe we could get this all put together to finally send that was going to come up in the next item but yes thank you okay proposal to write a letter and complain about the six-year housing land supply then um is that are you also proposing the two recommendations in the report Councillor Jung the correct answer is yes yes are you happy to second that Councillor Fernie thank you are there any other

00:50:35Comments on this paper before we go to evoke Councillor Brian Bailey thank you Joe I'm running here at the new MPPF section to achieving sustainable development and we have subsection C environmental objectives well if you care to read that you'll find that um x plus 20 particularly springs to mind on this because it's suggesting here that we should improve biodiversity which in that case we wouldn't it's suggesting here we should go for low carbon is this to do with the changes Councillor Bailey because I don't believe anything in contradictory to what we're actually going to do I don't think anything in the paragraph you're referencing did change well it's it's saying one thing but we're expected to do another you know letting all these cars onto the the b17 whatever it is thank you Councillor Bailey um that's not really relevant I shall bring it up later on chair if I may okay um we'll come to that point when we get to it in the next item anything else on this report specifically Councillor Roy collins is it quick I have already done outside committee

00:51:46Yes, [member of the public]. In Hornetton, we had HONI 18 come in at the 18 stage. How are the public to respond to this? What opportunities are there for them to respond to anything in this document?

00:52:08What's the time scale of the public got to respond to these things and how do they do it Councillor Collins this is this item is is not the Local Plan um so that that point's not really relevant um there is the opportunity for the public to respond to the regulation 19 consultation which will be starting imminently there's the opportunity for them to input to the planning inspector it may go to examination if we go to examination after that regulation 19 consultation the plan will be considered by full council there's plenty of opportunities but that's not a matter for this item Councillor Hayward thank you I think coming back to the point that council of commons is making and speakers have made earlier about consultation and representation that yourself and officers work with the town and parish councils to promote the consultation process from the very outset to the very end, maintain the comms, and work with your town and parish councils who are very keen to ensure that members of our East Devon community have the opportunity to respond.

00:53:18Some don't have electronic access, so we make other means available. There might have to be a method whereby paper copies, that's quite an onerous process but some people simply do not have access to the internet so I think as you have done in the past we just make all avenues available to those who wish to make representation so that no one feels excluded I don't believe anyone has been I think our process has been thorough all the way through that we've given ample opportunity and advertising and promotion every ward member has known what's going on they can disseminate that to their own towns and parishes but we as you will I'm sure just need to make sure we keep the foot on the pedal and everyone has the opportunity and I believe you know they will thank you indeed thank you Councillor Hayward but coming back to this report any further questions on the changes to the NPPF from December the 12th no okay in which case then members we have a proposal that's been seconded

00:54:23Which is as written in your papers with the addition of a letter to government regarding the six-year housing land supply requirement. All those in favour, please. That's unanimous, I think. Oh, sorry. I'd say it's still fairly clearly carried. Ten. Okay, those against. And those abstaining. Okay, that is carried then.

00:54:55Thank you, members. Okay. Sorry, Damien? Brian Bailey, is he not voting at all? One, two, three, four, five. Is he not voting? No, okay. Okay, so an abstention from Councillor Bailey. Either way, clearly carried. Which brings us then to agenda item eight, where I will take the opportunity before Mr Freeman speaks to remind members that we are looking at what has changed since the December version that we saw, because we have, of course, already approved the December version, which means unless members would like to suspend the Constitution, we can't go back and reverse those decisions at this time.

00:55:38So, with that said, Mr Freeman. Thank you, Chair. Yes, so as you say, the plan came to you on the 11th of December. I think at that time we said we would bring a final version to members if there was the opportunity to do so as previously mentioned we were under the understanding that we basically had 28 days to publish the plan from the NPPF that's now been extended so that's given us the opportunity to bring this final version of the plan back to you with all of the tidying up and formatting that was referred to in the 11th of december report so what you have is essentially two versions of the plan appended there's a clean version as appendix one you then have a track changes version as appendix two which shows you what's changed since the 11th of december and has notes next to it in terms of identifying those those things you also have a link hyperlink to an interactive policies map and there's also a hyperlink at paragraph 1.5 to pdf versions of maps of the towns and villages apologies that those were late in going into the

00:56:47Papers and also note that we've just updated the one for the second new community which did show a boundary for the cliff valley regional park within the new community which wasn't the intention members may recall we'd previously agreed that the boundaries for the cliff valley regional park running through the new community would be determined through the master plan for the new community so apologies for that that has been been removed and will be resolved through that route um so the changes made to the plan since the 11th of december well uh these are predominantly uh the tidying up um clarifications uh and changes that were discussed and either agreed at the 11th december meeting or part of the delegated authority that was given to myself in consultation with the chair to make um as I mentioned in the previous item there has been some updating to reflected 12th of december 24 NPPF and those specifically in relation to the housing provision and the housing numbers so you'll appreciate from what I said in the previous item that we've had

00:57:56To slightly change the numbers to ensure that we're meeting a requirement figure of 950 homes a year rather than the 946 homes the plan had previously been designed to meet and we were obviously as you'll be aware aiming for a 10 percent headroom through all of that so effectively we've had to shift um four homes per year from the buffer into the requirement figure to make that to 950 uh that in itself would have dropped the um the sort of headroom down to just over eight percent um but we've also realized that obviously uh some years of the plan have already passed and so in terms of a buffer we don't need a buffer for those years we know what was delivered in those years so through all of that process we've ended up with a headroom of 9.8 percent which we think is a comfortable headroom and very close to what we were aiming for of the 10 percent so that's how that's all worked out but obviously those are sort of changes to the plan that

00:58:57Weren't agreed at the previous meeting I'd also highlight the stepped housing trajectory which did mention at the previous meeting but we were still working on at that time so this is now set out in appendix one of the Local Plan and shows that we would set an annual target of 850 dwellings per year from 2020-21 through to 2031-32 so that's incorporating the first five years of the plan post-adoption and then it would step up to 1070 dwellings per year from 2032-33 onwards so this stepped approach would be justified specifically by the new community which obviously takes a large chunk of our housing need and the potential issues in terms of opening up a site of that scale and it then delivering homes so we think that there's a good argument for a step trajectory in this case because of those issues and the stepped approach should enable the council to demonstrate a robust 6.59 year housing land supply upon adoption so hence the six year supply being achieved but obviously that's not the most comfortable shall we say we've only 0.59 years above the requirement so we need to be mindful

01:00:20Of the need in the meantime to obviously bolster the supply position through consents the other thing to say is obviously as members will be aware this is a two-stage regulation 19 consultation so work is still ongoing on the second phase of that in terms of the new community master plan with that intended to take place in spring 2025 so there's a timetable for that set out in section five of the report section six refers more to Local Plan evidence so we've been gathering together the evidence for the plan and putting that on the website as a full evidence library to support the consultation now a number of those documents members have have seen or seen earlier iterations of or in the case of for example the viability assessment there was a presentation made and a report bought but we now have the final report which is now on the website similarly reference was made by public speakers to the Habitat Regulations assessment there was an early drafted that that went out with the regulation 18 consultation but obviously that's an iterative

01:01:28Process and has to be developed in parallel with the plan um and obviously uh the Habitat Regulations assessment has been updated for this point in plan making but there is still work to be done on that uh as was highlighted by public speakers particularly in relation to the Pebblebed Heaths and air pollution issues there so this is an issue that wasn't previously identified with the previous Local Plan which focused more on recreational impacts on the habitat that has been identified through further work that and this is informed by further work elsewhere at other similar habitats where air pollution issues are affecting soil quality adjacent to roads that run through the purple bed heaves and additional work is needed in terms of developing a mitigation strategy for that so we've had lots of conversations as I say this is an iterative process has been various meetings between ourselves and the consultants undertaking Habitat Regulations work and further specialists on this air pollution issue so we are satisfied that it can be mitigated but we obviously need to develop a full mitigation strategy as part of

01:02:37Further work to inform the plan for that to be submitted for examination there's also issues that were highlighted in terms of the water quality in the acts which I think members will will be aware of and obviously we've recently been granted over four million pounds of funding to develop the mitigation strategy for that so obviously that needs to be developed as we move forward towards submission of the plan as well and then it's through that process through the regulation 19 consultation that we will be consulting with Natural England on those issues and obviously working with them as the plan progresses through the examination process as well so as I say that's all an iterative process that works forward so we don't have the final answers we don't need to on some of those issues at this point that can progress as the plan moves forward from here obviously another outstanding issue is the greater extra transport study for which work is continuing to progress we will not have that for this consultation we will need to have that for the second round of regulation 19 consultation but obviously as

01:03:43Previously highlighted what that does look at you know the the sum of development coming forward through the Local Plan it's the second new community that is the really big area of growth that impacts on that wider transport infrastructure so there is a logic to that consultation coming through uh that process alongside the master plan for the second new community while I'm talking about transport issues I would just highlight in terms of the public speakers on EXMO20 that um while we've clarified wording in the plan has been picked up in terms of vehicle access from the B3179 I think our reports have always highlighted that access would need to be from the B3179 and that there were issues in terms of access to the south uh on the eczema side so that was already known all that's happened in terms of the wording of the plan is we've had further discussions with Devon County Council as the highway authority in terms of how that issue is addressed in terms of the wording of the policy and hence you'll see some additional

01:04:43Wording has been added in to the policy to try and provide greater clarification of those issues and highlight these issues about this review of local road and junction capacity and potential mitigation that would be needed as part of that work but I think those issues have previously been highlighted and considered by the committee and as the chair has said we're not here today to reconsidered the allocations which have already been agreed coming back to the evidence for the plan um obviously uh as I mentioned some of these are still works in progress and being added to the website another key one to mention is um the infrastructure delivery plan um so that unfortunately hasn't been ready for for today's agenda um it is largely a sort of factual document in terms of through the discussions that we've had with infrastructure providers as to what is needed to meet the the requirements of the Local Plan I would envisage bringing that to committee at a future date but it will need to go out to the consultation so perhaps post

01:05:47Consultation bringing through a report to you as a committee on that document and the responses we've had to the consultation so the committee have an opportunity to review that accepting that That's quite a key document, and I know there's a lot of concern about infrastructure and understanding what is needed to deliver the plan. And also we need to consider the consequences of that in terms of how we're funding infrastructure and working with providers.

01:06:12So apologies that it's not been possible to bring that, but we will bring that at a future date, alongside other reports that are still emerging. And I'll mention the water cycle study at this point, which has been an ongoing saga. But we will, once that is finally resolved, would obviously bring that through the committee as well just turning to the consultation itself then so as previously mentioned the consultation will be hosted using our Commonplace software that is largely set up now ready for the consultation but as mentioned that the december meeting it's important to note that regulation 19 stage it's a slightly different consultations the previous consultations we've had this isn't a consultation about have your say to inform the plan as it progresses and emerges this is the council saying this is our Local Plan do you think this is legally sound do you object essentially before it goes through to examination so the materials will obviously make that clear but just to make sure members are aware of that and that is is sort of the the scope of the consultation we have been working on a computer

01:07:23Sort of animated video that the chair has kindly been the voiceover for which sort of seeks to briefly tell the history of the Local Plan how we've got to this point through the phases of consultation so that again we'll be ready for the consultation to go live and we'll be posting that and stills from that for social media posts throughout the consultation to try and draw attention to the consultation and engage with interested parties. The other thing to mention is obviously implications for NAPA planning and decision making so as we go through this process obviously the Local Plan essentially starts to carry weight as it's published at regulation 19 stage so we will see that officers will start to refer to the policies in the regulation 19 plan in terms of their reports on planning applications it will carry only very limited weight at this stage obviously we know uh there are a number of controversial issues in the plan um but um we are at a stage where we should start to give some limited weight to that so you will see that coming

01:08:29Through in reports uh and equally that has implications for neighbor planning as we go through this process um obviously neighbor plans coming through in a slightly uncertain position in terms of developing plans that technically need to be in accordance with the adopted Local Plan still if if they're to be considered formally and made at this time however with the emerging plan coming through we would be encouraging labour planning groups to start to have regard to that as well depending on their timelines in particular because they may find that by the time their plan is coming through it needs to be in general conformity with the new Local Plan so we'll be advising labour planning groups of that and we're obviously here to help and support them through that process and linked to that members have hopefully received an invitation to webinar we're hosting on thursday evening with the town and parish councils and they planning groups to introduce them to the consultation materials and take questions from them on the consultation so welcome all members to that meeting on thursday evening so just turning back to the

01:09:35Recommendations there are two recommendations for this item the first is that the committee are asked to approve the publication draft of the plan as appended to this report again with delegated authority to myself in consultation with the chair to make any final minor adjustments but these will be very minor but I have already just noticed the typo so things like that that might need to be picked up and tweaked before the consultation goes out the second recommendation is for the committee to agree obviously to consult on the regulation 19 version of the plan as appended to run for six weeks the intention is for the consultation to go live next week as early in the week as possible subject to whatever changes need to come through from today's meeting which may delay that but the intention would be hopefully to go live on the monday the 10th thank you chair okay thank you mr Freeman deep breath everyone outside committee first and I see the usual suspects with their hands in the air so councillors faithful then

01:10:41Barlow thank you chair uh not wishing to ridicule officers and councillors hard work but what's the point with the six-year housing land supply how how much clout legal welly is this thing gonna have if we're gonna have to give out planning permission left right and center thank you well through you chair as we previously said this is about building a pipeline of sites to come through to address the housing and supply position if we don't have an upstate Local Plan then we have no hope of ever having a five-year housing and supply or six-year housing and supply for that matter um so while it's still a long way to go in terms of the Local Plan it's important that we are progressing and building that pipeline um in the meantime obviously we will get applications coming through but I hope having the new local planet regulation 19 stage and being able to give some limited weight to it at least gives us some direction in terms of where we're going in terms of our strategy moving forwards and it may encourage developers who are

01:11:50Promoting sites that we're looking to allocate through that to bring applications forward and where those aren't controversial and they're acceptable they could potentially be brought forward early through the planning application process to help to bolster the housing and supply position in accordance with our emerging strategy as opposed to sites that might otherwise come forward that aren't in accordance with either our adopted or emerging strategy and are just in no man's land for want of a better phrase which I think would be the worst case scenario so at least we will have an emerging strategy to guide development moving forward and help to build our supply position for the future worth possibly adding I think we're expecting to have a six-year housing land supply when we adopt this plan if I've read the report correctly yes sorry that that's correct yes that's what I was saying in terms of the step trajectory is that at the point of adoption we envisage having a six and a half year I think it is housing land supply um so this is a

01:12:48Long route to getting to having that six-year housing land supply I don't I don't think we will get there otherwise to be honest other than through the plan it is about the same thing Pete cuz I kind of want to move a song so it's not really what this report is about yeah it is it's how much I mean whether because as a member of the Planning Committee how much say can we have with with the early ones with things like infrastructure and stuff like that because this is what's bothering me to get out of the houses without the infrastructure that's that's not a question for today then peter um but perhaps mr Freeman can pick that up with you um afterwards or or by email Councillor Barlow uh thank you chair I don't want to take up any more of your time um I just wanted to say and I'm very quick to criticize but I wanted to thank you especially your vice chair the officers and the committee for the amount of time and effort and the speed of which you have

01:13:47Achieved this and the professionalism of them and I don't think people I know it's a very unappreciated I think by the general public that come here of what you're doing because it affects them but I just wanted to say thank you because I didn't believe we would ever get to this stage at some points so well done and I will leave it there thank you Thank You Councillor Barlow unexpected but thank you um anything else from outside committee is it relevant to the report Councillor Collins well I was just wondering if you're going to advertise what's happened here a lot of people don't follow social media I don't and how are the public going to know what's going on and how they can object or support so it will be published on social media we will be writing to all towns and parishes and all members of this authority to ask them to help us publicize this in their communities I believe we also have some press work lined up to ensure this is featured in the local papers

01:14:55Um mr Freeman have I forgotten anything uh yes just to add so um press release is obviously going out um but also residents newsletters um it will be be covered in that so uh we hope we will be doing a wide consultation to engage as many people as possible thank you mr Freeman okay coming inside committee then Councillor Jess bailey who's been sat there for some time thank you very much um so I am a bit uncomfortable going out to consultation and effectively we're going to be asking the question, do you think it's legally sound and do you object when we haven't actually had all the evidence base come through this committee?

01:15:42Have we? So things like the water cycle study, we should see that in whatever form discuss it as a committee. We haven't had the habitat mitigation document. We haven't...

01:15:58Thank you, [member of the public]. Can you please stop with the interruptions? We haven't had... [member of the public], that's... Sorry, Councillor Bailey, that's not how it works. I've asked you to stop interrupting, [member of the public]. I'm not going to ask again. I will adjourn the meeting if I have to, and we'll do this another time. Councillor Bailey. So, we haven't had... I know there's various works that have been done on flooding, flood assessments.

01:16:36And I just, I'm concerned that we're going out to consultation before we actually strictly have to. And I know it's kind of delaying things, but we don't have to go out to consultation for around another month. And we should, I do think we should actually be robustly looking at those documents because I'm not sure if we don't do it now, it's going to be too late, isn't it?

01:17:00Because effectively we'll have gone out to Reg 19 and we won't really be able to make any changes and they should be discussed before we go out to consultation. So that's my first comment. My second comment is I was very unhappy to see a line, draw an indicative West End line in the plan which we specifically said that we didn't want and it's in the plan and it includes areas that I wouldn't consider West End, like Aylesbeer, which is in my ward, and that's definitely not something that the committee discussed.

01:17:35Well, actually, we did discuss it, and we said we didn't want it, and yet there's an inconsistency between the text and then that line, and that is just not acceptable. So I think we need to discuss that as a committee. And then I've got some other kind of tweaks, but it's more like typos and stuff, and the line around Tipton isn't very clear, but I can email those separately.

01:17:56So those are my two key things one we haven't seen all the evidence and I think we should have before we go out to regulation 19 and two the issue about the west end thank you mr Freeman so I think in terms of the evidence um that you you write there are one or two bits and pieces that you haven't seen certainly not seen the final versions of uh I mentioned the Habitat Regulations assessment um and the final viability assessment report was perhaps the main ones at this point so we don't have the water cycle study so that won't be going out to consultation at this stage but I think as we said in the report I don't consider that necessarily essential for the Local Plan that has obviously wider connotations than just that there was however a presentation on the viability assessment work and we did bring a report I think it was to the 11th of december meeting with a sort of summary of the main findings of that nothing's really changed since then so there are no surprises in that document equally I think

01:19:06In terms of the Habitat Regulations assessment we had an earlier iteration of that regulation 18 stage and while it has been updated to reflect the allocations have now been made again I don't think you would see any surprises in that in terms of the impacts that are expected and the mitigation that's envisaged um so we can bring those documents and I mentioned the idp infrastructure delivery plan as well um which I see as largely a sort of factual assessment of of what's needed rather than necessarily a judgment thing in an ideal world I would have brought that to to members I think beforehand but it's it's not been possible due to time constraints um having said that um we can bring them um whether you wish them to come before the consultation goes out or uh during the consultation period bearing in mind that we're doing this as a two-phase regulation 19 consultation so if there were issues we could broaden the scope of the second regulation 19 consultation to include any changes that members wanted to see but I think the

01:20:14Evidence is largely a factual thing that supports the work that's already taken place I don't think you will find any surprises in there um but I'm in your hands as to how you want to do that um I'm not sure off the top of my head when our march meeting is in terms of phasing that with the march 12th deadline um but the other thing to be mindful of in terms of timescales and part of the reason we were trying to launch this first round of Regulation 19 consultation as early as possible is obviously ideally we need to have a gap between the end of this consultation and the start of the second Regulation 19 consultation and need to be mindful of getting through those consultations and the plan submitted as quickly as possible for examination. So it does put some strain I think on the future time scale if we were to do that.

01:21:09Is there an issue there too with the pre-election period? if county elections go ahead on March May 1st? I don't think, I'm not an expert but I don't think there is in the sense that this is normal day-to-day business and it's also a district matter rather than a county matter so I wouldn't envisage issues there but it may not be ideal from a political perspective. The March meeting is March the 4th just for members' awareness on that point.

01:21:44Councillor Bailey, did you want to come back? Yeah, I would slightly take odds with them being described as one or two bits and pieces. I don't think they are bits and pieces. And I think if we're going out to the public and saying, this is what we propose, we have to do it with all the backup so that then if anybody wants to challenge us, they've got everything there.

01:22:07Because otherwise, we're going to be in a scenario where we publish this and then if everything's not published at the same time it puts it makes it really difficult for people doesn't it because they may want to cross-reference our evidence base if I can just make one further comment in terms of the evidence is that the evidence base is is a constantly evolving process as we go into the examination so even after the regulation 19 consultation these documents won't necessarily be fixed they may be updated or or needed to be added to in the run-up to examination to respond to responses we receive through the Regulation 19 consultation from the public, other stakeholders, infrastructure providers, etc.

01:22:49So we always need to build in some flexibility for us as officers to be able to update and tweak these documents as we move forward. So I don't... I wouldn't want members to think that the evidence base that's going out with this consultation is the final evidence base and won't be touched. It will be. It's an evolving picture. which is why I wasn't so concerned, admitting in an ideal world we would be bringing it at this stage, but it can evolve and change as we move forward.

01:23:21So there is scope to bring those forward at a later date if members want to see them and discuss them and request potential changes to the evidence documents as needed. But I don't think there's anything in them that would change the content of the plan itself. For my own clarity, the documents that we don't yet have, um the idp the infrastructure delivery plan the greater extra transport study which as I understand it is principally for the second new community um the final HRA and the water cycle study have I missed anything so we have an updated HRA again as I say it won't be a final one because as I say there's further work ongoing and there will be even beyond the regulation 19 consultation um we were never going to have the greater extra transport study for this point in time so that's always going to be the second round of consultation we will have an idp for the launch of the consultation it's just being finalized as we speak um but we didn't have it

01:24:31In time for presentation today um the water cycle study again we will not have that for for this consultation but it's not I don't see it as an essential requirement for this consultation um why is that just for committee's clarity well I think it goes beyond what's needed for for plan making into wider issues about informing the idp and informing uh wider concerns about uh particularly wastewater infrastructure and discussions with southwest water but from a plan making perspective as I've said you know we're responding to responses from southwest water in terms of individual applications and how we move that forward it's not necessarily specifically informing policies in the plan okay thank you I think that clears up some questions for me I'm sorry I don't know who was first so I'm going to go with Councillor Bethany collins thank you chair um just for sort of clarity for for committee members if it was the will of this committee to delay things slightly to obtain that evidence base where does that leave us in terms of the already limited timetable that we have like how much wiggle room

01:25:49Is there because obviously I'm very mindful of meeting that that sort of deadline for examination um through chair I think um as I say we're doing a sort of two-phase regulation 19 consultation so if it doesn't go out in march and then runs for six weeks we're what into may and we were looking I think to uh start the consultation on uh the second regulation 19 consultation by mid may so in effect I think that potentially delays that because you don't really want to come straight off one consultation into another um so we were looking to have a gap of sort of at least a months um between so we're then into launching that consultation potentially a month later um I mean it's still doable um you could still potentially submit the plan by the end of the year on that basis and I think that's still within the transition arrangements um but it's just compressing things um making it tighter it means the second regulation 19 consultation potentially then falls quite heavily into the summer period and holidays and

01:27:01Things like that so we could be criticized in terms of engagement and choosing that time to do that consultation so they're just knock on impacts which I think aren't ideal um but it's possible if that's the will of the committee of the documents that we haven't yet seen if we delayed regulation 19 publication until say the 11th of march which of those documents could we see before that consultation starts well I think the main ones you you would have that you haven't are you could see the latest iteration of the Habitat Regulations assessment and the infrastructure delivery plan but there is also the final viability assessment but as I say that's you've effectively seen a summary of that already so I'm just looking over your shoulder there's the qualities impact assessment you haven't seen which we have you've obviously seen all the site selection reports sustainability appraisal again the sustainability appraisal is an iterative process so that's been carried out alongside so I've lost track of which iteration you've seen probably not the latest but again there won't be any surprises in there because we've done

01:28:24Assessment of the sustainability of sites and options as we've gone through and presented them to you um as we've mentioned you haven't we haven't got the water cycle study um sites within national landscapes well again you've seen assessments of the sites and national landscapes as part of this process um but you'll be aware you agreed a methodology for assessing the made which ones were major developments and the exceptional circumstances test so there's that element that you won't have seen the final wording of um but as I say all of this is an iterative and emerging process not just at this point in time but moving forward so I think it's a wider question in terms of um at what point you want to see these things um and and how do we get to final versions for submission for examination so in summary the main one that we would see that isn't out there currently would be the idp yeah okay hopefully that makes the position clear to members and if somebody wishes to make a resolution on that basis um then they can do and we'll see

01:29:34What happens uh but I think we've explored that issue there unless there's any further comments in debate I'm going to come now to Councillor Paul haywood then uh how then davie thank you chair As always, with this committee, there's so much to unpick. I'm grateful for Mr Freeman for explaining with some clarity the issue of the housing supply times, dates, and Councillor Faithfull has alluded to it.

01:30:04So this committee has moved from a five-year land supply to a four-year land supply to a five-year land supply to a six-year land supply. So I hope that anyone watching and any other councillors understand we're up against a set of moving goalposts at the same time that we have an interminable period in fact a shortened period because each time we try and develop this plan a government and at the moment each each variation of government just seems oblivious to the the needs of East Devon and the pleas from this committee to actually have some sanity in the process and just keeps imposing ever-increasing housing numbers on this district but we have to react and each time we react they change the goalposts again and we come back and we have to tweak it and that's why we're in the situation we're in so I think we've done admirably to try and keep up but this is why earlier I voted against that recommendation because you're going to write a letter to Westminster saying six-year land supply is outrageous okay we'll put an eight-year land supply in be careful

01:31:07What you wish for because each time they will just keep changing they don't care national government does not care that the one government a blue government a red government dare I say even no disrespect chair but not a yellow government they just want houses that's all they want numbers it's all a numbers game based on algorithms they do not care a jot about local communities especially rural communities and that's the reality of living in East Devon I came from an urban area I now live in a rural area um and they don't care they just want numbers and that's what we have to do because if we don't they will do it to us so we can try and manage the process and I'm very very sympathetic with the people of Budleigh Salterton who and I've received those emails about EXMO20 but I'm a clerk my own council has been aware of this local pan process for the last year. It's been on agendas. It's been discussed. Members may just note it and report it, but it's

01:32:07Been put to them. My own councillors are aware of every parish around me. They're aware of development in Somerset. I've made them aware as their clerk and as a ward member that they know what's going on. And that's what you have to do. You can't just wait for someone to tell you. You have to be engaged with the process. That's what we do. We have to read thousands of pages, everyone on this committee so we come into this knowledgeable and aware you know reading tracked documents is not fun but we still do it because it's the same document as the other 300 pages before but there's slight changes there's red lines in it um on the point about the reports we haven't got there's always going to be reports and I take Councillor Bay this point absolutely entirely that we need evidence to do it but we'll have them and then we'll bump up against the deadline. Every delay we do, yes, Mr Freeman said, it's doable. It's always doable until someone in Westminster gets their pen out and says, actually, I've changed my mind. You've now got a month to do

01:33:10It, not three months. And then we're up against it. It's emergency meetings where no one is properly briefed because we're doing it on the hoof. So there will always be a report that we're waiting for because they're third party reports in a lot of cases, but the deadline doesn't change. So we have to keep responding so at some point we will have to make the best educated decision we can as a committee on behalf of the people of East Devon and it's never a nice decision I have every sympathy for everyone who chooses to serve on this committee because it's a nightmare it really is because we are always up against it and we're always at the butt end of abuse and criticism about what we do but we are trying our best under difficult circumstances so I will listen to others and they're at a delay or not a delay but I think we need to press ahead with this and the knowledge that it is a consultation that's exactly the word, it's a consultation

01:34:04If we get a wholesale response back that people don't believe it's the right thing from councils, from third parties from stakeholders, from members of the public then we will readjust it we'll have to, that's why we consult it's not a given, for anyone who says it's a done deal what's the point, this is why we are consulting but at some point we're going to have to bite the bullet against the backdrop and anyone in this room knows it of devolution yeah and I'm sorry to throw that to raise the the specter of that elephant in the room at some point there will be a bigger authority that has to do this for the whole of a county and perhaps even a strategic authority dwell on that that it perhaps is better to get our our cards on the table now than wait thank you I might have to rep reprimand you Councillor Hayward for using that banned word in this meeting Councillor Howe please I don't think I'm going to be as impassioned as Councillor Hayward has just been but actually I was

01:35:10Thinking on exactly the same lines I I'm sat here thinking and after listening to what mr Freeman said and I'm going it's doable it's doable but at what expense and at what choice do we have when we get a an agenda published what is it 10 days before we've actually got to go out anyway if we delay it we can't change anything because it's too late if we do change it I think we totally miss our publication date and everything else I'd rather publish now get the rest of the documents up behind we have a second Reg 19 consultation that hopefully and I'll look at mr Freeman this if we find issues we know there are issues but if we find issues that are unsurmountable because the HRA or anything else we can adjust and go through again in the second Reg 19 consultation that's the only way we get any time to do it with a review and possible changes doing it now we haven't got the time to do it have we mr Freeman there is that option with the second

01:36:21Regulation 19 consultation to make changes to the plan obviously our intention is the regulation 19 consultation is specifically on the second new community the master plan and evidence that relates to that but there is no no reason why we can't broaden that if if needed but I I would say in terms of the evidence documents I think if if you wanted to see changes it would be to the evidence document rather than the plan um and we can update and change evidence documents in the run-up to the examination anyway and in fact as I said you know it's an iterative process so that's what would be needed anyway um so I I can't I can't foresee anything that's in the evidence documents that you haven't seen that would necessarily need to change is in the plan itself um so it but either way it's you're quite right council how it's it's possible through that route I'm sure you're not suggesting this but perhaps just for the benefit of any members of the public watching online when you talk about changing evidence documents you're not talking about

01:37:27Fiddling the evidence are you mr Freeman no so change was a poor choice of words I meant if you wanted additional evidence or there were um you know areas that you felt needed further investigation or bolstering I didn't suggest I wasn't meaning to suggest um changes in that that sense no thank you I just thought I'd clarify that one um coming back to my list then I think I have councillors davy then firmly thank you chair um yeah I'm looking at page 429 in the agenda pack which is page 112 of the Local Plan, the draft Local Plan with the track changes.

01:38:14So I'm trying to focus only on those, but I may stray. It says strategic policy, CCO2, like we've done there, this has to do with dealing with climate change. We now say we're moving towards net zero carbon development. I understand why this has been put in, but I still think, do we really want to say moving toward, I think we should just kind of put our cards on the table and say we want net zero carbon development, even though it may only be an aspiration.

01:38:56At least let's get that aspiration in there, rather than the aspiration be that we're sort of trying to get there. Also, we're not going to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040 if we continue to allow developments that are not carbon neutral because they'll continue to not be carbon neutral. I was disappointed that underneath that, at A, we're only going for the energy efficiency requirements in the future home standard, which I think was widely criticised when it came out.

01:39:37But I do understand that, and I do like the table a couple of pages on that shows the hierarchy, which clearly puts a kind of fabric first. approach in there. And there are other good things in there to kind of future-proof homes in terms of solar panels and so on. A C, it says, to be designed to avoid temperature discomfort as a result of rising temperatures. And I'm not quite sure whether that's a reference to global warming, a reference to hotter summers. And I don't think it's particularly helpful. I think we should just say to be designed to avoid temperature discomfort, full stop, because temperature discomfort can go either way. And I think if we're only concentrating on overheating, in fact, the effects of global warming could go either way. So we may actually end up getting colder weather as well. So I wonder if we should just keep it simple and ensure that they are kind of thermally efficient to avoid temperature discomfort full stop just like to say about EXMO20 I think one of the reasons we asked

01:41:05Officers to look at it again was because we considered it was a better location than some of the developments along hullam road that we really did not like and I think it was actually chosen as an alternative but I'm afraid I wasn't here uh for the meeting where that that was approved um uh well I was at the meeting when I think it was put into the draft plan but not uh the last meeting where the current uh iteration of the plan was approved um and in terms of whether we should delay publication for yet more evidence.

01:41:43I don't think so. I think we should just go ahead and publish and be damned, as the saying is, and as we no doubt will be. So let's go for it. Okay, thank you, Councillor Davey. I think Mr Freeman can definitely pick up those two changes in wording. Certainly the intention for point C was that it was in reference to climate change. so we can make those two slight changes in wording.

01:42:13Mr. Freeman, this is an opportune moment to come back to the point Councillor Fernley made earlier. I know we've discussed a number of times in briefings outside of this meeting, but for the benefit of the record, there were some reports in the press, and I think Ollie might have been alluding to them as well, about the future home standard being watered down. I asked you to have a look at, again, this policy and what opportunities there are for us to improve our policy in that regard.

01:42:48The policy is unchanged here. Can you just maybe go over for the Benefit of Committee why that is, please? Yes, certainly, Chair. So, I mean, the issue here is, and I've referred to this in previous reports on this issue, is that there is a written ministerial statement from now the previous government about local authorities not being able to adopt higher standards than building regulations in terms of this issue.

01:43:15That written ministerial statement has been challenged through the courts. It made it to the high courts last year, I think, and wasn't successful as a challenge. I think they've been given, the groups that were challenging it, have been given leave to appeal that decision, but that's not been heard yet. So as things stand, the policy position of the government is that we cannot adopt standards that are higher than the future home standard, hence the policy.

01:43:44What we've done through this policy, in consultation with SWEG, which you'll be familiar with, is try to design something that is sort of future home standard, plus things that are not covered by the future home standard, such as the future-proofing for the fitting of solar panels. to make that easier for people to fit solar panels by putting everything that's, all the gubbins in that's needed to connect it, but not actually requiring it, because that would then be contradicting the future home standard.

01:44:17And our belief is that that will achieve a higher standard without contradicting the written ministerial statement. So we've done everything we can to get to a higher standard. Obviously, it would be highly regrettable, I think, if the government were to dilute the future home standard, which I think in consultation responses we criticised for not going far enough at the time. But we are slightly hamstrung by the written ministerial statement as things stand.

01:44:46And until we know the outcome of that appeal, I can't see that there's anything more we can do than what we have done in terms of the wording here. but to be clear in light of those press reports we will absolutely be writing to the Secretary of State and saying boy get your act together hence bringing up that point. Thank you Mr Freeman any other comments then as we go through Councillor Fernley did you have anything else to add or was it that point you were raising again no okay I saw Councillor Collins Councillor Bethany Collins and then Councillor Brian Bailey thank you chair I just wanted to propose the recommendations in the report I think that um I and I appreciate the comments that have been made about sort of delaying it with the evidence base but ultimately as Councillor Hayward said we're always going to be sort of one step behind on these things and I think that we need to to push on and not delay things any further okay constitutionally then I'm required to look for a seconder Councillor Levine do you wish to

01:45:53Add anything okay thank you Councillor Brian Bailey having looked at all this I think we're as we're mostly aware we're being rushed into this three quarters prepared I would imagine seven eights prepared but we're not fully prepared I take Councillor Bailey's point that we need to be prepared because Otherwise, it will come back and bite our bums, for want of a better expression. We are, as the Americans say, between a rock and a hard place.

01:46:38We can't do right for doing wrong. Ollie mentioned Exxon 20. I'm totally against Exxon 20. When it did come up, it was seen as a least worst option, I think, was the quote from Councillor Howe when it came up. And the more we look into it, the worst choice. sometimes, personally, I think most of the committee that voted for it would probably wish that they hadn't. But it's too late now. But what we've got to remember, that we're in the forms of time come before the planning committee who will make the final decision.

01:47:17[Passage not reproduced here. It contains allegations or strong criticism of named people or the council, made at the meeting. We don't repeat allegations; you can hear the passage in the council's own recording by playing it from this point.]

01:48:24Okay thank you Councillor Bailey any other comments on specifically changes since the december plan I had Councillor Jung and then I saw Councillor Jess bailey and then Councillor Fernley sorry I thought you said that you hadn't I thought you we'll come to Councillor Fernley first then sorry I misunderstood earlier thank you chair um it's partly to do thank you ollie for all the points you made, some of which I was going to say.

01:48:57We also talked about wind power, and in the report it mentions that wind power will only go in the places where, on the map, that we had, well, it was an old map, wasn't it? And we talked about having a hook in this document to go to a supplementary document about encouraging the use of wind power, and I'm not seeing that. It may be there, but I can't find it. Looking at the interactive map, it talks about cycle paths, and there's a purple line for strategic cycle paths. I can't really make any sense of it. I don't know if they're not there, not joined up. I'd like some explanation of that um sorry where where is that Councillor On the interactive on the interactive map mr we talk about gypsy and traveler sites and that there will be five and this refers to the east of the m5 langerton lane site it talks about that there will be five how I understood it there'll be five fixed sites, but it talks about up to 15. Does it mean there could be another

01:50:1810 traveller pitches in that area? I'm just asking for clarity. And this next point relates to the infrastructure delivery plan. As you know, Tide Bond and West Coast have no community spaces currently um there's the the area north of the science park that is for mixed use there will be opportunities for putting in I've forgotten the class of use for the buildings would that allow a community space to go in there or could or is that something we need to tweak is it something we can get in because it would be fantastic if there was a route for us to have a community space because even with a planning commission that's going through now we are going to be sorely under delivered with community spaces we've already lost one because it wasn't affordable for the community so I don't want that to be forgotten and the last point all the way through it talks about Cranbrook Area Plan, not in Cranbrook Area Plan. If you looked at this and went straight into a bit that says Cranbrook Area Plan, it's very confusing. It suggests that

01:51:45That thing in a box only refers to Cranbrook Area Plan. So I would have thought you need an also in there to make it look more inclusive. Thank you. Okay, a lot in there for you, Mr. Freeman. do you want to take us through yes I might need to come up with clarification on a couple of things um I was trying to keep up um uh did it um we used to wind power um my my recollection was that we'd concluded that the opportunities for wind power were so limited in the districts that there weren't going to be any changes from that I don't know if others recall differently we definitely because you use the word hook um ollie and I laughed that you'd use the word hook so that um to take it towards so so where was the hook it's not there now but that was the conversation we had at the time about trying to we wanted you to the plan to promote windflower if it could because we've had the change in the government from windflower being

01:53:00Effectively blocked by one person to now it could happen in more places. So we wanted to make sure that that was a thing for the Local Plan. Do you remember, Ollie? I must say I don't remember that conversation either. Not making it up. We talked about there might be need for a supplementary document to do with wind power going forward? I vaguely remember a discussion, but I remember responding and saying that the evidence in the low-carbon study suggested that there was very limited scope for wind energy production in the district and therefore didn't feel it was necessary.

01:53:56But wind technology has come on and come on and that evidence is quite old. so to say now that we can't continue to look at it doesn't seem quite right I think the evidence was was based on sort of local topography and prevailing wind speeds and things like this that seem unlikely to have changed it's the turbines that have changed I mean if it's the will of the committee I'm happy to look at where we can insert a hook as it were um I'm just looking through the chapter to see if there's anywhere obvious where we could do that.

01:54:47Chair, could I just ask if we need to highlight wind power specifically? Could it, if we remove the reference to wind power, could it simply be subject to the other considerations that we do when looking at renewable energy, adverse impacts, and so on? And it could just be covered by everything else rather than saying it has to be in a specific location. Because I agree, I don't think we should simply rule out, you know, that we don't think there are any suitable locations, because there could be for small-scale schemes, they don't have to be massive, but there could be areas that would be suitable for that.

01:55:34I think if I remember right, we're required to identify on a map areas that are suitable for wind energy, which is why that reference is there in policy CCO3, and we have the policy areas on the map. um yes that's right we have they're quite small areas um and there's specifically for wind farms I I took the point was more about sort of low-key small some more domestic scale um which wouldn't necessarily be covered by that I guess we could add a sentence after where it says proposals for wind farms will only be allowed in defined areas as shown on the policies map to say the small scale domestic wind turbines will be supported in suitable locations or something like that.

01:56:33Yeah, that sounds like it would cover it. Yeah, okay. Any objections in committee to us taking that small amendment further? I think realistically policy CCO3 probably allows for that anyway. No? Okay. Any other of Councillor Fernley's points still to cover? mr. Freeman there were a few so I think the next one was the gypsy and traveler sites I think the difference in numbers is the difference between the total gypsy and traveler site provision which includes provision of the new community which is written into new community policy combined with the site at Langerton Lane that's allocated which I think is where the 15 comes from so what how many places will be at the Langton Lane site then it says there'll be five fixed I'm pretty sure but it was this were there going to be any others as well in my memory was five and then ten at the new community top of my head it says at least five permanent pitches so I at least five permanent pitches at Langton main site do you not mix permanent and traveling it will just be fixed yes so the plan doesn't make

01:58:00Provision for transit pitches that's part of a wider discussion we need to have with Devon county and the neighboring authorities about meeting the need for transit pitches across the sub region rather than at a district level so I think the other point well there's two more points I've got One was about community spaces at Moss, Hane and Tidebond, which I didn't quite understand, if I'm honest, as to how that would be brought into the scope of this plan.

01:58:31Because you're talking about an infrastructure development plan that we haven't seen, and that Tidebond has so little infrastructure, we have no community space for 1,000 homes. So Paul is just flagging community space for the IDP? Okay, so this would be in addition to the IDP, assuming it's not already in there exactly yeah okay so I think this comes back to we need to bring the idp to the committee at a future date assuming you wish to proceed with the the plan as the recommendations in the report we could then bring the idp perhaps to the next meeting or subsequent meeting to discuss things like that which then would be a um addition potentially to to the evidence um depending on the on the on the discussion so we can certainly do that at a future meeting but I don't think there's a change to the plan needed on that okay okay and the last point so this was the Cranbrook references so yeah we got references I think in pretty much every policy that says at the end this policy applies in the

01:59:38Cranbrook plan area or it doesn't I think you were saying that was confusing if you just came to the plan and opened it at page 111 at the bottom it says this policy this policy applies in the Cranbrook plan area which kind of suggested it doesn't apply everywhere else it's just a grammatical thing do you see what I'm saying yeah happy to take that away and look at how we can clarify that just in case yes um I see what you mean we'll look at that Councillor Jung then Councillor Jess Bailey and we're going to take a break at 12 whether or not this item is finished I support the motion but with a few tweaks page 23 and 28 we've got a circle indicating the West End which is very confusing I think I think we just take them out of those two maps.

02:00:42On page 51, we're talking about the new town, secondary school provision. Can we ensure somewhere in the wording that it expedited at an early stage that will offset the Exeter Community College oversupply and on page 53 we talk about its meanwhile uses wastewater transfer station or waste transfer station and wastewater treatment um wording uh can we have the wording uh to uh to not exclude alternative locations as we have to be very fluid with southwest water um excuse the pun because they might want a location other than within that community area just small points and there's a couple of other grammatical things and full stops in the wrong place which are a send through through you chair I think in terms of the new community policy I think I'm increasingly resigned to the fact that we will probably have to tweak that and send it out again with the second Reg 19 consultation because there is a challenge so we say in in finalizing a policy while we're still writing the master plan and obviously the two need to tie in um so

02:02:22I think we consult on where we've got to let's get the feedback in and then I think logically as part of the second regulation 19 consultation alongside the master plan we can also consult on any revisions to that policy but I think there will be inevitably be consequential changes to that policy as a result of the master plan um but yes I don't see a problem in terms of being clear about the need for education to be expedited and flexibility about the wastewater treatment works I hope we'll get some clarity through the ongoing work about the wastewater treatment works and what operational requirements there are and the need for that just on the the west end um circle which I think my recollection is we've added that in specifically because members wanted a boundary shown within the plan um but forgive me if I've got that wrong um I did I think I did express reservations about that at the last meeting when that was suggested so yes if there are views on on on that whether that's in the right place wrong place should be deleted in hindsight and not

02:03:28Included um would appreciate a steer on that we've done our best to to draw something that we think is is reflective but I'm not convinced it's a circle that we necessarily need I think it would be a more complex shape than that but then it becomes very precise rather than a general area hence why my original suggestion was to just keep it to words but I'm open to suggestions I think my suggestion to committee is that we kill the west end circle without further discussion after Jeff asked for it twice.

02:04:06Any objections? No? Okay. May the West End Circle rest in peace. Councillor Jess Bailey? No, that was Jess wanted to kill the West End. And Paula? I want to find the strategic cycle routes in the West End. While Mr Freeman looks for that, are there any other comments on the changes since the December version or once we've resolved this query from Councillor Fernley can we go to a vote we'll just deal with this query then no pressure mr Freeman so the interactive map yeah so we're not proposing any strategic cycle network routes this is just for well indicative of what I think is emerging through the LC WIPs, the local cycling and walking infrastructure plan. It was on the quay and it had a purple line and I couldn't get the purple lines to come up.

02:05:26I was going to say it might not be there either. It could be not planned yet. Okay, I think we can maybe pick that one up afterwards. We have a proposal then from Councillor Bethany Collins, seconded by Councillor Levine to adopt the recommendations as written in this report. All those members in favour, please. I count ten. Those against? One. And those abstaining? One. Okay, that is carried. Thank you, members.

02:06:02We're now going to break for ten minutes until ten past twelve, and then we're going to do agenda items nine, ten, and eleven extremely quickly on Tweed Committee.

02:22:32Okay, are we back? Are we live? we are excellent very good thank you uh we resume then with agenda item nine the Exeter Local Plan regulation 19 consultation 2025 proposed response from eddc mr Freeman thank you chair um so um just as we're going out to regulation 19 consultation Exeter city council launched theirs just before christmas um and so this report is uh responding to that and uh recommending how we respond as a council I think the good news is that we're pleased to see that Exeter City Council are proposing to meet their own housing need within the city's boundaries which they notice is challenging we know the city is constrained by its boundaries and there have been concerns about what implications that might have through previous work that's been done however in terms of the plan that they've presented they are meeting their housing need However, we have concerns about how they're dealing with their employment land provision.

02:23:39The plan is very careful to make reference to the functional economic market area in terms of employment land provision. It doesn't specifically reference the identified employment land needs within the city itself, which are identified within the Greater Exeter Economic Development Needs Assessment, which we brought through the committee the year before last now, I think it was. which basically demonstrates a need for around 68 hectares of employment land within the city's boundaries to meet the needs identified in the Edna.

02:24:17However, in their Local Plan, the City Council are only allocating three sites for what they term as transformational employment uses, which total 15.5 hectares. In addition, they look at providing additional sites through windfalls on our mixed-use brownfield sites and redevelopments however one of those key brownfield sites is parts of marsh barton which are obviously already employment land and so a mixed-use redevelopment could only lead to the loss of employment areas in terms of employment land obviously it might be a densification in terms of jobs they also refer to the existing motorway service station which we'll recall from our response to their Regulation 18 plan is a site that they don't allocate but they identify as somewhere where they would support alternative uses should an alternative site for the motorway services be identified. But we haven't identified a site for that in our Local Plan and neither have Teambridge or Mid-Devon so in the absence of an alternative site it's difficult to see how that would come forward um so in terms of their employment land provision they are somewhere

02:25:32Short of the edna figure teambridge have slightly exceeded the need identified in their plan we as members will be aware are intending to exceed the need identified in the edna for East Devon which relates to our wider strategy of a new community that needs to be self-contained and therefore have significant employment spaces within it as well as a number of key employment sites in the adopted Local Plan that haven't delivered that we're carrying over into the new plan with a renewed emphasis on delivering those.

02:26:05So we consider that what's been provided in our Local Plan is needed to meet the needs of East Devon and there's no intention to try and meet the needs of the wider geography of the area. So it leaves us in a position I feel where we have to object to the Exeter plan in terms of the lack of employment land provision citing the impact this will have on the economic growth potential of the city and the wider area and that failure to make sufficient provision will lead to pressure to accommodate city-generated growth in locations outside of the city boundaries in the future.

02:26:42We're also proposing to flag up the fact that no request has been made under the duty to cooperate for us to assist in meeting the employment land needs identified by the EDNA, which I think is a key omission from their planned production work and regrettable that those discussions haven't taken place if indeed that is their intention. So there's that issue in terms of employment land provision which I think we've previously flagged in comments that we submitted to the Regulation 18 plan so that's not a new issue.

02:27:14It's perhaps regrettable that it's not been addressed as their plans progressed. The other issue which is more of a new issue is in relation to the sites north of topsham members will be aware that in our plan we're identifying a significant development north of topsham along the Clyst uh Clyst lane Clyst road and we had envisaged a joined up approach to the delivery of those sites with with the city council so the city council have included a policy uh headed topsham infrastructure delivery framework within their plan that looks at a coordinated approach to the delivery of infrastructure on sites north of topsham both within the city and within the district council's boundaries which I think we welcome as as an approach and there is that need to join join that up I think at one point we had hoped that it would be a more of a broad reaching master plan but appreciate the delivery of infrastructure is the principal issue there however there seems to be an omission from the policy in that there's nothing to prevent development allocation sites within the city

02:28:16Boundaries from proceeding ahead of the infrastructure delivery framework or indeed not in accordance with it which seems to undermine the principle of what they're trying to achieve so we're suggesting that we object to the wording of the plan but that can be overcome through modifications and we're suggesting some wording in a text box beneath paragraph 7.3 as to how that could easily be addressed so that could potentially be put forward as a recommendation to the examination if the city council agree so I think that's relatively easy to overcome but in terms of employment land provision it's quite fundamental to their plan and we can't really see any way of easily addressing that within the constraints of regulation 19 consultation so members should be aware that that could cause some problems for the city council in terms of progressing their plan but as I've said I think there are implications for East Devon that need to be highlighted but we need to be mindful that we may well need to appear at their examination and make our case

02:29:17And explain why this is an issue why the additional employment land that's planned within our plan within East Devon is not to meet the need within the city but is to meet needs within East Devon and present a robust case through that process the members need to be aware of the implications that has both in terms of resourcing but also mindful of relationships with with the city council in objecting to their plan but I think under the circumstances it's it's necessary and right to do so so the recommendation is that members agree the comments are set out in the report and that we submit these objections which are in the two grade out text boxes within the report to Exeter City Council as our formal response to their plan thank you thank you Mr Freeman are there any questions from outside committee to start Councillor Collins if we object to Exeter plan well then they're going to object to our plan surely uh thank you chair um they may do um I would like to think we're not giving them good reason to object to

02:30:33Our plan um ultimately this is not about um you know how we play with our neighbors is is about what's the the planning content of their Local Plan um and the issues that raises for for us I I would like to think there are not issues within our plan that are likely to cause similar issues for the city council um but it's obviously with regret that we end up in a position where we we feel we need to object to one of our neighbors plans I would highlight that it's not while it's unfortunate it's not that unusual I think Exeter city council objected to teambridge district council's plan that's currently at examination so it's it's not unheard of and it's I don't think it's particularly led to difficulties there but um it's um just where where we are unfortunately um but yes we'll have to see how they respond to our consultation in due course. Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Questions inside committee? Questions? Councillor Davey, questions, please. I think it's a question. Are you sure? That was a question. I should

02:31:41Have run it past you first, shouldn't I? Yeah, I mean, I suppose what I wanted to say is how big a problem is this? Because we have huge amounts of in-commuting into Exeter anyway. So anything that actually reduces that amount of commuting and enables provision of employment more locally, I kind of feel is not a bad thing. And I think it is an opportunity for us. I suppose the danger is that it, and I'll just check this with you, it's a question, does this put pressure on us then to provide more employment land in our draft Local Plan and is that going to be a problem so is that really what the problem is um rather than the fact that we we you know want to see Exeter providing huge amounts of employment for people in East Devon I think the danger is not so much in terms of our plan we we are making provision over and above what the edna identifies um because of this need to create a self-contained new community in in the new town but also because of past under provision of employment land and

02:33:03Wanting to ensure that we catch up during this plan period as well as delivering what's needed to meet the needs of the additional population that this plan accounts for but I think the danger is if the city are not meeting their needs um then in addition to to that we'll be under pressure to deliver employment lands that are helping to meet the needs in the city that are going unmet and that that could take up valuable land within the district that we might need in future plan period for housing or employment land to meet our own needs and that's um they're not available in the future because finite resource ultimately um so I think that's the fear and that we will get applications being made uh on the basis of a lack of employment land elsewhere um and come under pressure on economic arguments to grant sites that aren't planned for in our plan to bolster supply across the sub-region um and is that a position we want to be in uh we've previously worked on

02:34:07The basis that each authority sort of washes its own face in terms of both housing land and employment land that's obviously going to be increasingly hard to do in the future but this is kind of the first time we've been in a situation where the neighbouring authorities are not proposing to do that and perhaps unfortunate that they haven't been open with us and have that conversation with us as well unfortunate indeed Councillor How your question please thank you and relating back to what you said, Mr. Freeman, a few minutes ago about Topsham Infrastructure Delivery Framework Policy TI1.

02:34:45What happens if they don't heed our warning, shall we say, because we have an allocation of land right alongside this site, which is why we want this policy done correctly, that if Exeter doesn't play ball, doesn't do the right things, is pretty damn unsustainable in its own right. if we don't get a warm response from Exeter so I'm just it's a what if what happens if have we got a good chance um well I I think if that scenario happens uh and I would say I have no reason to think it will because I'm optimistic that um Exeter understand our point and may take action to try and address that um but if they don't um obviously we'll have to make these points to the examination but I think um what we're saying is entirely logical in that what is the point of having an infrastructure delivery framework for those developments if you're just going to allow them to come forward and ignore it um so I would hope that's a fairly simple context concept that an examiner looking at their plan would would accept and it's very

02:35:58Easily addressed from from the wording that we suggested just needs an extra sentence at the end of the policy so I would be optimistic that even if we can't reach an agreement with extra about how that's addressed that um we would have a strong case and an inspector would see the logic of what we're saying okay thank you mr Freeman I see no further hands so I'm going to propose the recommendation from the chair as written I think it's regrettable we're at this stage but I think it's proportional and appropriate um Councillor Fernley okay thank you very much are there any further comments at this stage no in which case then all those in favor of the recommendation as written please that is unanimous okay thank you very much members that brings us then to agenda item 10 the self-build and custom house building update and monitoring report 23 to 24 mr Freeman uh thank you chair some members may recall seeing uh these annual reports previously this one's come forward a bit earlier in the year than we would usually because we have an ongoing

02:37:06Appeal where um self and custom build is being argued as a as a case for granting consent for something that we have refused um so we wanted to have a clear and up-to-date position on where we are in terms of supply of um self and custom build plots going into that appeal um so effectively the position is a set out in the report which is essentially that we have adequate sites supply figures show that we permission 15 plots between the end of october 23 and october 24 three needed to be counted against the residual which leaves 12 plots that we can count it towards the requirement which was a demand of eight so we have a nominal surplus of three plots in effect so the recommendation is simply that members acknowledge that information in the latest monitoring reports and that we endorse the monitoring report for publication on the council's website thank you mr. Freeman any questions council of faithful quickly please thank you chair so how many how much interest do we get in self build do we have a I don't see a number on there I don't

02:38:26Have the information to hand but they appended to the report is the monitoring report itself which tells you the numbers of people registering an interest and and those that have been put on the register so perhaps if you make reference to that and if there's any further questions happy to pick them up outside the meeting thank you mr. Freeman I see no further hands so I'll propose the three recommendations as written from the chair all those members in favor please that's unanimous thank you very much uh and agenda item 11 new planning policy the local development scheme mr Freeman thank you chair so members will recall actually brought through a new local development scheme only a couple of meetings ago um but actually as part of the new national planning policy framework we're required to publish a new lds within three months setting out how we're addressing plan making in light of that document so you have a new iteration of the lds appended to this report effectively the only real change is the change to the commencement of

02:39:29The regular the first phase regulation 19 consultation because the previous iteration said that would launch in january which obviously hasn't happened for reasons you'll be aware of and is now going out in February other than that it's essentially the same as the previous iteration that you saw so the recommendation is that that be recommended to council to be endorsed and take effect. Thank you Thank you Mr Freeman. Any questions on this one? No?

02:39:57Okay I'll propose that then from the Chair. Recommendation as written. All those in favour please That is unanimous Thank you very much members. That is the end of today's meeting one of the shortest in recent history thank you very much members see you in March