Strategic Planning Committee, 8 July 2025

00:09:07Okay, good morning everyone. We are going to get started slightly late. Apologies for that. We're sorting ourselves out there to make sure we're all ready for the meeting. First up, a health and safety announcement. There's no fire alarm drill anticipated today, so if the alarm sounds, please leave the building through the nearest fire exit by following the signs above the doors. make your way to the rear of the car park and wait there until you are told it is safe to return and also please do make sure all phones are either muted or switched off. To start the meeting proper then good morning everybody and welcome to this Strategic Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday the 8th of July 2025. I'm your chair Councillor Todd Olive. To my right is vice chair Councillor Mike Howe. Supporting officers present today are Ed Freeman, assistant director of 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

00:10:09To the meeting use a microphone or your comments will not be recorded. We will now start the meeting then by doing a roll call of committee members and declaration of interests. Wendy, please. Thank you, Chair. I'll start with yourself, Councillor Olive. Present and nothing to declare at this time.

00:10:29Thank you. Vice Chair, Councillor Howe. Present and nothing to declare. Councillor Brian Bailey. Wendy, nothing to declare. Councillor Jess Bailey, if you could use someone else's microphone and I'll sort yours out in a minute. Present, nothing to declare. Councillor Blakey. Present, no declarations. Councillor Colin Brown. Present, no declarations. Councillor Davey. Present, and I'm an East Devon, sorry, no, I'm an East Devon councillor. I'm an Exmouth Town councillor.

00:11:27I think elements of the plan have implications for Exmouth Town councillor. Councillor Fernley? Yeah. well because allocations in the Local Plan could have still implications for Exmouth Town Council and various allocations in the Local Plan could have implications for the Town Council in other ways as well I'm sorry about that I'm apologies because of the way this has been set up I'm trying to thank you not switch my computer off okay so no what I'm saying is I mean basically if it's going to affect one of your other registrable interests is that any better oh that's because I'm quite close to the microphone

00:12:46I've turned the uh the conference volume up to full I can't get it up any further so maybe we might need to um speak closer to the microphone can you hear me lovely so what I what I'm asking you then uh Councillor Davey is if you're saying it's going to affect the finances or well-being of one of your other registrable interests yep so then are you saying that you believe your judgment be clouded or not no no so then it's an fxnri yeah yeah okay thank you can I just hold for a minute then um damien would your advice be that everyone on committee who's a member of town or parish council with an allocation needs to declare an fx nri effectively if they believe that any of these individual allocations would affect them then yes so if everybody's going to be in that situation it's pretty much a blanket uh fx nri unless you believe you're prejudiced in any way can we just take it as a blanket or do you need us all to declare it individually

00:13:54Take it as a blanket they are all recorded on our register of interest as well I would note so in which case then we'll take it that every member on committee who's a member of a town or parish council is declaring an effects nri Councillor Bailey jess bailey I Councillor Jess bailey thanks um and as a Devon county Councillor Thank you okay thank you with that said then we'll finish the roll call and you don't need to declare it every time folks thank you so uh that leads me to Councillor Fernley.

00:14:32No. Present no declarations other than what we've just blanketed. Thank you. Councillor Haggerty? No, it's not here. Okay, Councillor Jung. I'm present and I need to declare an interest that I'm Chair of Beach Management Plans for a lot of areas CCMA issues come under that and have been lobbied on a number of planning applications around XMAS. I think we'll note lobbying for those allocations on behalf of everyone on committee please Wendy. So Damien the beach management plan, would that be MFX NRI?

00:15:30No. I come with an open mind. Thank you. Councillor Ledger. Present and I'm going to need some advice for Damon there's an individual site within Seaton that is opposite to my home would I need to declare that right now so on that basis I would say that it's you've got to consider and whether or not it would directly affect your well-being or your finances that's the first question to ask yourself it overlooks my property so yes it would okay then so then do you believe you're affected to a greater extent than anybody else I would say you are if you're so nearby so you would have an effect some prejudicial nri and you would have to leave the meeting when that item is discussed it the advice is more so on the fact that is this not higher level enough that I wouldn't need to lose because we're not really discussing the seat and site specifically if we're not discussing this sorry yeah if you're not discussing that particular site in detail then there's no declaration to mention at

00:16:42This moment time because there'll be lots of sites if we're just generally looking at things we're looking at the Local Plan for goodness sakes it's going to affect everybody in East Devon so what we want to look at is whether you're talking about a specific site if we get into talking about specifics about any site in it in particular this site now then you would have to leave the meeting at that stage yeah so I'll make that declaration and then if it's brought up I'll leave the room yeah thank you thank you thank you so that leads us on to Councillor Levine present and I'll be very boring I've got no declarations thank you and Councillor Parr we have Councillor Parr here okay okay so that leads me to the non committee members if I could just ask if you have any declarations for this meeting no lovely thank you back to you Jeff okay thank you Wendy we come then to first up agenda item one the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 19th of May 2025 does anybody have any comments on those

00:17:54Minutes please no in which case then as chair I'd like to move those minutes as true and accurate records of the meeting members please raise your hand if you're in support any abstentions okay that's everybody thank you those clearly carried agenda item two apologies for absences I have Councillor Paul Hayward and Ben Ingham noted do we have any others from the floor well we have some absences I'll just record those as apologies as well thank you agenda item three declarations of interest we have already done which brings us then to agenda item four public speaking many of those on the agenda today to speak have spoken at some point or other here in previous meetings if you haven't please use the microphone on the lectern at the front you'll need to push the button on the right to switch the microphone on and when you do so you'll see your image appear on the screen together with a three-minute timer which is the time that you'll have to make your statement or ask your question. We begin then with [member of the public]. I've stood here stating policy and

00:19:25Procedure. The Reg 19 evidence demonstrates these are not of concern. So Mr Freeman, false statements, fiddle evidence. Thankfully the inspector will see it all. Just on the Habs Regs, December 11th, no HRA. Feb 4th, non-compliant HRA. Mr Freeman, Jess Bailey was straight up asking you, your professional should have compelled you to say the plan was not legally compliant. You're meant to be helping them make informed decisions, not mislead them.

00:19:52[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.]

00:21:12Is the least worst option and we are in July still missing core evidence. The HRA, the mitigation, the water cycle, county highways and even national highways are not happy. The mitigation hierarchy is compelled to kick this site out and fundamentally, is it actually viable? In June, I was directing traffic around an accident at one of the many blind junctions. I am telling you first-hand evidence for the record that this road is not capable of accommodating any more vehicle movement.

00:21:50[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.]

00:22:31Really flipping important, that bit. Councillors, the powers that be are trying to get rid of you from the planning system. With Mr Freeman and Co's question or competence, we need you more than ever. [member of the public], that is your three minutes. Can you finish, please? Please ask the difficult questions. on behalf of the public who elected you, hold them to account. I welcome any questions. Thank you.

00:22:54Thank you, [member of the public]. Mr. Freeman, I'll ask you to comment on these public speakers one at a time, please, and then members, it's down to you to bear this in mind when we come to discussion on item 7 later on, as most of these speakers relate to that one. So we'll go to Mr. Freeman briefly, and then we'll move on to [member of the public], who's the next public speaker. Mr. Freeman.

00:23:17Thank you, Chair. Well, I was going to respond to the question, which [member of the public] actually got to, but is in the papers, which I understand he was going to ask me to confirm whether in my professional opinion on the 4th of February, 2025, when advising councillors on the Strategic Planning Committee, I believe that the Regulation 19 plan was sound and legally compliant.

00:23:40I think I actually answered this question at the previous meeting and in subsequent emails, but yes, I did believe it was sound at that time. And in terms of the Habitat's regulations, which I think is what you're referring to in terms of legal compliance, I think the HR at that time noted that there was some additional work needed, but I'm confident that it will comply by the time it needs to meet those legal tests.

00:24:01Thank you. He just did, [member of the public]. Thank you. [member of the public], please. I'm here today to highlight concerns that I have with regards to Reg 18 and the handling of sites EXMO20, 20A, 20B and Exmo_46, which in turn impacts on the inclusion of EXMO20 in Reg 19.

00:24:34My concerns are as follows. At the SPC meeting on the 9th of August 2022, the developers presented land at St John's. They were not even sure what site they were presenting. Their reply, and I quote, was, I think it's EXMO20. It was, in fact, Exmo_46. Within the report pack for the SPC meeting on the 6th of September 2022, within Item 28, the Appendix 2 Exmo's amended version document confirms that EXMO20 was not being promoted for development, but that Exmo_46 was.

00:25:12Was. In addition to the draft Local Plan, there were three main supporting evidence documents in Commonplace for Reg 18. They're still there. The HELAA report highlights that EXMO20 fails site sifting, but that Exmo_46 can go forward. The Sustainability Appraisal Report and the Exmo site's additional information document both state that EXMO20 is not being promoted for development but that Exmo_46 is. Then we'll come on to sites Exmo 20A and 20B.

00:25:47These two new sites are not on any call for sites list. They first appear on the Exmo sites map within the report pack at the SPC meeting on the 1st of November 2022, six days before Reg 18 starts. Yet these sites are not mentioned or discussed at this meeting and I've watched the video. So my questions are, when did this committee agree to remove Exmo_46, reinstate EXMO20, and then agree to add two new sites, Exmo 20A and 20B?

00:26:22Councillor Olive, you've assured me that neither you as Chair, Mr Freeman, nor [member of the public], can add or remove sites from the plan. So who authorised these changes? All of what I have provided here and in my email that I sent to the committee members yesterday is taken from the ADDC website and indicates to me that ADDC have not followed processes and procedures in relation to sites EXMO20, 20A, 20B and Exmo_46.

00:26:54I'm willing to be proven wrong and I keep on being told that all of the answers are on the website but I can't find the answers to the questions I've asked anywhere on the EDDC website as I see it only Exmo_46 should have gone through Reg 18 and therefore 20A, 20B shouldn't have been created at all never mind put forward for allocation in Reg 19 and therefore neither should EXMO20 It is not too late to rectify this. These mistakes need to be done before you go to the planning inspectorate.

00:27:30Remove EXMO20 now from the plan and look at alternative sites now. Thanks for your time.

00:27:36Thank you, [member of the public]. A number of questions in there, so I will come to Mr Freeman to pick those up, please. uh thank you chair um well I mean without going through the detailed history um expo 46 I understand it's part of EXMO20 so it's just using the different names that so the number of the sites came through and through different processes and we've given different numbers and then we merged some of them to create larger sites that could be considered as a whole um And that's where Exmo_46 comes in as a reference number, but it's part of EXMO20, which was then later divided up into Exmo 20A and 20B.

00:28:18Sorry, it does get confusing in terms of all of these different numbers, but all of the sites were taken through the correct process, as I've said previously. Clearly, as you'll see from the report that we're going to come to, we need to look at the responses that we've had through the consultation. obviously we had a lot of responses in terms of EXMO20 so that will need to form part of a future report considering what actions if any are needed to be taken with regard to that site but I don't consider that we're not in a position to do that today we need to do some further work in terms of considering those comments that have been received and bring a suitable report to members with regard to that and other changes to the plan to future meeting thank you so Mr Freeman has responded. So now I'm going to move on to the next public speaker. Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. Thank you, [member of the public]. [member of the public], I have a note here on my script

00:29:17That you'd like to be moved to later in the speaking order. Is that still the case? Yep, that's fine. I've got it down here that you'd like to be the 10th speaker. Is that still the case or is there a I have 12 speakers registered to speak today it's our job okay thank you that's fine um I then have uh [member of the public] and I'm sorry I might be about to butcher your surname Grew Grew I was close [member of the public] thank you thank you [member of the public] good morning ladies and gentlemen my name is [name removed] I live have lived in Cliff Road Sidmouth for the past 27 years and I represent the Cliff Road Action Group. I wish to talk today about the draft Local Plan and in particular policy AR03 which proposes a coastal change management area or CCMA on the east cliffs of Sidmouth. There are 15 houses in the proposed CCMA and the policy states that Within the coastal change management area defined on the policies map, proposals for new residential development, including the conversion of existing buildings, will not be permitted.

00:30:49The policies map purports to show the area that EDDC believes will have been eroded in the next 100 years. I wish to suggest that the policy should be dropped for two reasons. First, there is little evidence to show how this area has been arrived at. The original draft Local Plan showed an area containing over 40 houses, but this was reduced to the present 15 houses because of objections received, not for any scientific analysis of erosion.

00:31:23Secondly, the policy doesn't appear to benefit any local purpose. If, however, this is not possible, then I would like to propose two, I hope you will agree, common sense amendments to the policy. First, householders should be allowed to extend or alter their properties, subject to usual planning regulations and at their own risk. Twelve years ago, I extended my house. I knew I would only be able to enjoy it, perhaps 20 to 25 years, not because of erosion, but due to my age.

00:31:58If this policy had been in place then, I wouldn't have been able to build this extension. As it stands, I couldn't even add a porch to my house. I believe that within reason, householders should be able to decide what to do with their own properties. you will all know that there's an ongoing project to reduce the rate of erosion at east cliffs to the long-term average of 10 centimeters per year this is primarily to protect Sidmouth town from flooding my second proposal therefore is that this policy should explicitly state that the ccma designation will be removed upon completion of these works currently scheduled for the end of 2027 as the reduced rate of erosion will mean that no property is at risk in the 100 year time scale thus eliminating the need for a ccma so if dropping this policy which is our preferred option is not possible my two proposals are first allowing householders to extend or alter their properties and second eliminating the CCMA once works to reduce the rate of erosion have been completed. Thank you [member of the public]. Thank you [member of the public] and I'm

00:33:17Sure we can pick up those comments when we come to debate on item 7 later on this morning. Next up [member of the public]. Hello councillors, Mr Freeman and Wendy. Like many people I struggled with the

00:33:50Consultation method using Commonplace. It is therefore utterly amazing that there are 1110 comments from people who have given their thoughts on EXMO20 and still everyone is being ignored. the plan is not sound in spite of what mr Freeman is saying the plan for EXMO20 goes against many of East Devon district council's policies speakers here today have explained countless times why you as our councillors should be asking about the procedures which wrongly have brought us to this point today. I do not live in the proposed EXMO20 backyard but for the people who live in St John's Road it is a travesty. The proposal however will affect me as the main exit for the proposed site and entrance is onto the B3179 which runs busily across the top of Darditch Lane where I live there have been four accidents on this road at the top of my lane in four weeks and so to add more traffic to this road will be dangerous and foolhardy councillors please consider how your directive for trees hedges and woodlands matters ties in with removal of many

00:35:22Veteran tree canopies hedges and the destruction of ecosystems by covering the site with concrete bricks and tarmac and electricity I suppose councillors young and olive have even contributed towards this directive how can that be what is going on I am here to plead with councillors to visit this site and see for yourselves that this land is not suitable to build on and the entrance and exit will endanger people on the B3179 with increased traffic.

00:36:01Please consider building these houses in a more suitable place, perhaps next door on the home-based site.

00:36:08Thank you, [member of the public]. and I'm sure councillors will reflect on that and pick it up in debate as there was no specific question in there. [member of the public]. I've got that to read out. We have a statement.

00:36:31Thank you, Wendy. Good morning, councillors. It seems there's a disconnect between East Devon's site allocation choice. Can everyone hear me okay? I'll start again. It seems there's a disconnect between East Devon's site allocation choices and the NPPF definition of sustainable locations. Why are the consultation responses for your supposedly least worst choices so disproving? The site selection methodology has a key criterion of walkable distances to services with the figure of 1,600 metres, which is 1 mile or 20 minutes, widely quoted.

00:37:19I looked at the settlement hierarchy, and this is where I uncovered the fundamental flaw that appears to have generated poorly located allocations such as EXMO20. So in East Devon, if you walk for 1,600 metres from the service centre of any settlement, you will get beyond the settlement boundary. The only exceptions to this rule is the recent development of the western end of Honiton. The most northern parts of Sidmouth and, of course, vast swathes of Exmouth, 1,600 metres from the Strand, gets you only as far as Withycombe Village School.

00:37:59Yes, really, Exmouth's wedged growth pattern further exacerbates things. This singular whole settlement assignment is not fit for larger sprawling settlements. Sidford, now considered part of Sidmouth, suddenly jumps into Tier 2. What about if Lympstone becomes a suburb of an expanding eczema? Does Lympstone suburb suddenly be deemed to have hospital and secondary school? Your assessment is not appropriate for settlements larger than 1,600 metres from centre. That's how you are incorrectly stating a site like EXMO20 is in a sustainable location, yet its main access point is 4,340 metres from Exmouth train station and a four-mile drive, which, by the way, is the same as Exton from Exmouth Centre, yet you don't claim Exton has a hospital and a secondary school.

00:38:58So measuring 1,600 metres from the surfaces, as identified in the settlement hierarchy assessment, much of the rear of Exmouth cannot be considered a sustainable location. I did find something of great interest to tell you all, I did find something of great interest to tell all that may help save this Local Plan. First, Limstone, a Tier 3, in part due to having hourly bus service. This bus service is over a kilometre walk from the centre of the settlement, located on the A376, but within the 1600 metres, so it counts.

00:39:36Now, Wimple Tier 4, only different to Lympstone, is not having an hourly bus service, except it does. This bus service, the 44A, is over a kilometre walk from the centre of the settlement, located on the old A30, but within the 1,600 metres, so it counts. Wimple also has 382 bus running through it. Wimple is a Tier 3 settlement. For reallocations, you should be considering Wimple on the main line railway and with good transport links via the best road serve in East Devon, the purpose-built A30 dual carriageway.

00:40:19It's also closer to the secondary school at Cranbrook than EXMO20's main access point is to Exmo Community College, which is confirmed as having no capacity to expand. Wimple even also has King's School three miles in the other direction. If you don't utilise the gift that is Wimple, I believe the inspector will. I shall submit my Venn diagram maps to assist the inspector. so please consider site allocations based on actual sustainable locations that's the foundation of the MPPF walkable communities this will result in a much sounder plan please reconsider EXMO20 thank you okay thank you Wendy for reading that out and [member of the public] for sending that in again no specific question so down to councillors to reflect and consider for debate when we get to item seven uh next up we have miss emily glanfield and I believe we have a question to be read out yes so uh she says since the 3rd of september it has been confirmed that EXMO20 has no meaningful vehicle access to exmo it is accepted that housing would need to be concentrated on the southern part

00:41:53Of the site, EXMO20, so their lack of vehicle access to Deenon Way would require cars to drive at least a kilometre in the opposite direction away from Exmo town centre to join the main access at the B3179, a country road, before driving back down to Exmo. The direct result of allocating EXMO20 would be forcing cars to drive more miles, making longer, indirect car journeys from all the proposed 700 homes. Furthermore, the situation has changed significantly since the 3rd of September in that the long-awaited Deenham Way extension is now finally underway, meaning that the Holland Road sites will link directly to the A376.

00:42:42Can you confirm that you still believe EXMO20 would be the least worst option and a sustainable and accessible location thank you wendy and there is a question at the end there but I'm not sure it's a question mr Freeman can put an answer to as I think that's more a question for um committee in what it wants to do uh if anything uh with EXMO20 um so I think probably the most sensible thing for me to say is and thank you miss glanfield for that question um and we will seek to pick that up in debate on item 7 rather than put Mr. Freeman on the spot speaking for committee whose decision it ultimately is on the answer to that question.

00:43:31Next up then is [member of the public]. Thank you, Todd. My name is [name removed] and I live in Wimple. So thank you, Chair, and to the members of the committee and for all your hard work going on with this. I'm just going to skip to one of my more latter points actually given the point that's just been made about wimple um I think in all the um uh conversations I've heard from this uh meeting so far on past recordings I think the cross-boundary impacts have not been considered enough of of development so wimple's being asked to take more housing yet across the fields literally two fields away we've got thousands of houses going in not hundreds thousands in Cranbrook so it is just about two fields away and actually that impacts on our schools or the schools got those Cranbrook children there which is fine it's all good but it's all puts pressure on our roads and our schools and everything so let's not forget about that when we're considering the allocations um I think it's really useful being here because I've had a lot of procedural concerns which is

00:44:42Where I was going to start and that is one of my main questions around actually where is the space in your work plan and your timeline for addressing these procedural concerns which are actually profound and I think the report that you've got for this meeting today just diminishes those procedural concerns particularly in paragraphs 4.1 and 5.5 so take Wimple 08 as an example Bramley Gardens that's what I'm going to talk to planning officers didn't support it residents were told the site wasn't under consideration and the site selection report marked it as unsuitable yet it was proposed by our Councillor During an SPG and then snapped up by this committee. Wimple 08 has no option for footpaths to the village it is and I can tell you that road is like a death trap I walk it every day it is of historical significance houses rare wildlife and is part of the green wedge there were other sites within the selection report that could have been more suitable and one was even marked as possible but it was not explored it was simply Wimple 08 was leapt on at the last

00:45:51Minute and we have not been given chance for rebuttal paragraph 5 reference in your in your paperwork paragraph 5.5 references a comprehensive and logical allocation process and as the other gentleman said before me I haven't seen this with Wimple 08 I haven't and I call into question the democracy of it actually um so when do we get chance for rebuttal and when do we get chance to actually address these procedural concerns um I would also ask as well about the use of ai when you look through the comments actually have you got a policy that guards against effective use of ai because I cannot see it on your website there should be to ensure public trust in your use of it um it's not about opposing housing it's about ensuring fairness accountability and public trust in the process you represent us please show us that our voices matter thank you thank you miss muse please could you just or could somebody just switch off the microphone please thank you um a couple of questions in there uh so I will ask mr Freeman to come back on those please

00:46:56Um thank you chair um yeah so in terms of the procedural matters I mean I think we went through a very open and transparent process in terms of site allocations actually with all of the discussions taking place in public session in this room with the committee, which is not how a lot of local plans are produced. A lot of those decisions are taken by a group of members behind closed doors, and then the whole plan is what's discussed in public session. So I think we were deliberately very open and transparent about that. I think the issues that have been highlighted are cases where members have perhaps gone against officers' recommendations in terms of particular sites but that is their writers as members it's a democratic process they had all of the evidence and information in front of them to make an informed decision and that's what's happened those sites have then gone into the regulation 19 version of the plan which we've now put out to consultation we now received responses so that is effectively residents opportunity to

00:47:54Respond and comment on those sites the report that's before members today summarizes those responses and sets out a path to considering those comments and responding to them in terms of any consequential changes to the plans that might be needed. So that's the path we're on, and I'm confident that procedurally that's an acceptable approach. In terms of the use of AI, AI, we do have a policy, or rather our IT providers have a policy on AI use, and I think the point here is also about use of private data, and I can assure people that no private details of anyone who's responded have been put through AI, simply the comments themselves have been summarized using AI in accordance with that policy. And we've handled the personal data that's been shared through the process in accordance with our privacy notices published on our website.

00:48:55Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Freeman. We come then to Karim Rabic. I'm sorry if I've mispronounced your surname.

00:49:22Good morning. I stand before you to express deep concern over the proposed EXMO20 development of 700 houses bordering the Woodbury Common. The Common is a site that carries not just one but several layers of national and international ecological protection, a site of specific scientific interest, special protection area, special area of conservation, natural nature reserve, which incidentally is the highest level of conservation protection available under UK legislation. The Common is also in the process of being included in the local nature recovery strategy of Devon as a high-value land. This is one of the most highly designated conservation areas in the southwest of England, not to mention that the actual site that has been put forward for the development itself has been designated as a strategic natural area for its importance as a link between the common and the sea. To consider placing major housing development on the edge of Woodbury Common is quite simply a step in the wrong direction, not only for biodiversity but for our obligations under national planning policy and environmental law the mitigation hierarchy which I'm sure this committee

00:50:34Is familiar with asks first and foremost can another site provide the same outcome with less harm this site adjacent to extremely protected landscape surely fails that basic test there are other locations that do not carry the same level of ecological sensitivity where development could proceed with significantly less risk to wildlife habitat and the integrity of a protected area the Woodbury common is not just a local treasure it forms part of a network of rare lowland heath home to species found nowhere else in britain and critically and it is critical to our national biodiversity strategy to place 700 houses with the inevitable impacts of noise pollution light pollution Traffic and the pollution that comes with that, not to mention domestic animals, human pressure, also close to this important, sensitive, and rare habitat, runs counter to the very purpose of its protected status.

00:51:32Let us not forget the damage done by proximity is not easily mitigated. Buffer zones and fences won't undo the stress placed on a fragile ecological system by such a scale of development. I ask you today with respect and hope, please consider that saying no to the allocation of this site is not a rejection of progress. True progress means choosing sites that allow us to meet our housing needs without undermining the fragile natural world of which we have a duty as educated, civilized, moral, and hopefully responsible citizens to protect.

00:52:06If this site were to be given a green light by the committee, what precedents would it set for property developers in the future wishing to build large-scale projects at the doorstep of highly sensitive and protective conservation areas? What hope will nature have in the future if the leaders of today do nothing to protect it? If this committee truly honours mitigation hierarchy and the values behind SSSI, SPA, SAC, NNR, LNRA, and SNA protections, then I believe the only reasonable decision is to seek an alternative location.

00:52:41Thank you for your time and for your stewardship of our shared future.

00:52:45Thank you, [member of the public]. [member of the public]. Thank you, Chair, Councillors, for the opportunity to speak today and for your efforts to date with the strategic plan. As a member of Wimple Parish, I have a specific interest in Wimple 08, but I understand the strategic purpose of this committee. My point relates to the strategic intent of the plan and how that meets the tactical delivery at sites such as Wimple, so i.e. how the need to meet the government's mandate for housing needs can potentially be leading to poor planning decisions on sites such as Wimple 08. I know the committee's original aspiration to allocate sites that were recommended for allocation by the site survey reports i.e.

00:53:40Sites above a threshold but unfortunately when you're unable to meet this quota using this methodology you had to nominate sites that fell below a threat the threshold wimple 08 is one such site whilst I understand the logic for this decision I think it's fair to say that this was not an ideal solution for the residents of East Devon having read the supporting documents to the agenda the 0.7 and specifically paragraphs 5.5 to 5.12 I feel it feels somewhat inevitable that sites such as Wimple 08 will now be developed in the future.

00:54:15Conversely, as a resident of Wimple, the development of Site 08 feels totally impractical for the reasons that are stated in the site survey report and also captured within the Regulation 19 feedback. So my questions are, what assurances can the committee give to residents that due consideration is being given to the tactical issues associated with the development of sites not originally recommended? And, where appropriate, may such sites be removed from the allocation, noting the strategic pressure that falls down from the government?

00:54:51Finally, what if any feedback is being provided to the government to improve future housing development policy, noting the feedback you will inevitably be capturing throughout this process?

00:55:01Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public], and for those questions. We will come to Mr Freeman, as I think there's some bits and bobs he can speak to there.

00:55:16Thank you, Chair. I mean, to pick up the last point first, I suppose in terms of feedback to government, I think it has always been this council's position that whenever consulted on housing numbers, we have pushed back and pointed out the severe environmental and infrastructure and other constraints that this district has. that means that meeting housing numbers as set by government is extraordinarily challenging and does lead to some very difficult decisions and choices to be made in terms of which sites are to be allocated and the impacts that they have in terms of particularly impacts on environmental constraints and infrastructure in the district. So the council has long since responded to those consultations and raised those concerns as I'm sure have many other councils across the country, and ultimately I think it's fair to say that the government's imperative to meet housing numbers and address the housing crisis has always taken priority over those concerns, but I'm sure the council will continue to raise those concerns with the ever-increasing housing numbers and the problems that we face in terms of addressing those.

00:56:29In terms of the decisions, I mean, I think part of the comment was about decisions going against the Office of Recommendation in terms of those allocations. I'm not sure I'm best placed to answer that, other than to reassure you that in our presentation of those sites, we tried as officers to provide all of the necessary information to members to make informed decisions. Ultimately, this is a democratic process, and there will be occasions where members come to a different view when balancing all of those issues that you touched on And I've touched on in terms of balancing different constraints of different parts of the district and trying to identify the most sustainable and the least harmful options for meeting the housing numbers.

00:57:12And while some of those decisions went against my recommendation, I'm confident that members had all of the information to make informed decisions. And that's what they did. In terms of reversing or challenging those decisions, we need to go through a process, as I've already said, of reviewing the comments that we've received through the consultation, looking through the plan and coming back to members. Not today, that's not what today's meeting is about, but at a future meeting in terms of what changes we would recommend that members make to the plan.

00:57:44I think for today, the discussion is about scoping that out. are there other things that aren't in my reports that members want us to take away and and and look at uh particularly having heard the views of of speakers today uh and then we can come back with a report that um responds to all of those issues and recommends what if any changes should be made to the plan and then we're in the committee's hands in terms of what what changes um are then made uh and then the further consultation second regulation 19 consultation to follow when when residents and interested parties have the opportunity again to comment on the plan and those can go forward through the examination process from there. So there will be further opportunities to review and comment on the plan. Thank you, Mr. Freeman. I will come then to [member of the public] for our 10th speaker. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing

00:58:58Over and over again and expecting a different result. A quote from Albert Einstein. With that in mind, this is the fourth time in eight months that you have had the privilege of listening to me. I have spoken of EXMO20 and its failings. Failing site selection, failing HELAA, failing with regard to the HRA, failing in your lawful duty to consult, failing to assess the flood risk, failing to apply the mitigation hierarchy and the danger you will cause by forcing traffic gone to the B3179, and I have got nowhere. Despite the best efforts of this process, however, I do not consider myself to be insane, and therefore this morning I want to address you, the elected councillors, your role, the difference you can make. Mr. Olive, you spoke very animatedly in the February meeting about how you care and about how everyone in this room cares.

00:59:57Now it's time to show it. The consultation feedback report fully acknowledges the importance of EXMO20. 1,110 responses out of 3,510, one-third on EXMO20. Your electors are telling you something. In the last few months, we've contacted [member of the public] office many, many times. And on the occasions we received the reply, we were told, use the consultation process. So we did. 1,110 times. And now, Mr. Freeman, you're advising them to carry on with this flawed plan. Have no regard for the message received from your electors. It is Mr. Freeman who tells you in his report the most commented on policy was SD01, in particular, EXMO20. He further says there were numerous challenges to the sustainability appraisal, particularly EXMO20. He admits statutory bodies raise significant concerns and objections to the plan, but still he plows on. The report states on page four, it is essential that the plan does not change significantly.

01:01:11On page six, a large number of comments and objections were about sites allocated for development. It is not in bold, underlined, considered that a substantive review of whether The site should be removed from the plan is appropriate. So why did you bother consulting? So what am I saying today? My wife had 34 seconds, Mr. which I'd like to pick up, that's all. It is clear there is overwhelming evidence against EXMO20.

01:01:43You councillors have been advised to plough on. What I say to you is you face a choice. Support the officers with their obsession with a timetable or listen to your electors. We're saying what they seem to be saying in Wimple. Process, get it right, be fair. EXMO20 has been wrong from the outset and cannot be made right. So have the courage to recognise its failings, remove it from the plan and allocate in its stead the many sites that were brought forward on the 3rd of September 2024.

01:02:21And just to finish, George Bernard Shaw, a man or a woman who can't change his mind, can't change anything. It's now down to you.

01:02:33Thank you. I owe you a second, [member of the public]Neill. Thank you, [member of the public], and for attending again to share your thoughts. Next up, then, we have Councillor Yarwood for Wimple Parish Council. So another voice from Wimple. I'm Jo Yarwood. I'm a member of the Parish Council. I'm here to speak on behalf of the village concerns about the two sites that have been allocated within Wimple. Both are raising serious concerns within the village about pedestrian safety.

01:03:14This is a village where all roads leading into the village have single lane access. All roads leading into the village are variously without pavements. Our villages will be left at more increased risk by increasing the number of houses within the village. The idea for the two sites is 83 houses. It's entirely likely that people will have two cars in each house. This is an increase of cars of around 160 in a village that already experiences on a daily basis near misses with all our residents.

01:03:57The question to councillors and to the council here is, how are you going to ensure the safety, the pedestrian safety of all of our villages by increasing the number of houses within the village to this number? Furthermore, both sites have flood risk issues. The site referred to as the old cricket ground has on at least two previous occasions been rejected on the grounds of road safety. In other words, access to and from that site.

01:04:33Our local consultation did indeed highlight the need for more houses, and it asked for more adapted housing. However, the numbers required in that local consultation were fewer than townhouses. um the other issue we also would like to raise is that the 08 site is as I think has already been referred to intruding on the green wedge which I know the council has a great commitment to how is uh diminishing the green wedge any sign of the council's commitment to such policies um I think that's all I need to say my colleagues from wimple have already said enough and we don't want to take up uh time but that these are these are these are issues that have been raised previously we don't feel that they've been taken into account and we want to particularly focus on pedestrian safety which is a major issue in our village yes we have a school that's oversubscribed Yes, we have a station, but you still need to be able to walk through the village to get to the station.

01:05:52Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Yalwood. And last, but by absolutely no means least, [member of the public].

01:06:04Thank you, Chairman.

01:06:25My name is [name removed]. I'm a retired charter civil engineer. I retired from the Environment Agency in 2011. I have experience with the Environment Agency in the production of hazard maps to inform local planning authorities. Amongst other things, in close liaison with the Local Government Association and the RTPI, I manage the NRA's National Pilot for Mapping Floodplanes in order to inform the production of local plans and the processing planning applications by the LPA.

01:06:54This pilot project produced a methodology for mapping floodplanes that was rolled out to the whole of England in order to inform LPAs. I'd like to speak about the mapping of the coastal term management area for Cliff Road and Sidmouth, so I'd like to add to item 7 on your agenda. On page 79 of the feedback report, under Policy AR3, for Cliff Road CCMA, the main issue is reported to be, the first main issue is reported to be, strong opposition from residents and landowners in Sidmouth, particularly Cliff Road, who argue that the CCMA is based on flawed or inconsistent data.

01:07:29I need to let the committee know that I oppose the cliff road ccma not on the basis of flawed or inconsistent data which can be a debatable matter of opinion but on an irrefutable fact that fact is the cliff road ccma is not based on any erosion data that is in the lpa evidence library or elsewhere in the public domain hence the cliff road ccm map is not justified with published erosion data and therefore it is not sound it may also be that is not legally compliant because the erosion data to support the Clifford CCMA is not being published in the LPA evidence library all the factual evidence in support of that irrefutable in support of that irrefutable fact is in my response to the regular to the regular 19 consultation that evidence is mainly emailing research between myself and the APA who were very helpful I don't have time to quote all the research now, but in short, the LPA advised me, if I want to see the missing data for the Cliffroad CCMA, I will need to ask East Evans consultants for it. This reply from

01:08:41The LPA clearly shows the Cliffroad CCMA is not based on any erosion data that is in the LPA evidence library or elsewhere in the public domain. I'd like to request that the Cliffroad CCMA be reviewed all the most recent data I since the 2017 BMP that was used to analyze it is produced side start again I need to ask that I need to ask that the Clifford CC may be reviewed or the more recent data I the 2017 BMS the data that was produced since the 2017 BAP is analyzed I still have to do this Again, I'm getting really twisted up here.

01:09:31I'd like to ask the committee that the Cliff Road CCMA might be reviewed, or the more recent erosion data, that is the erosion data since the BMP was produced, and the analysis of that data, which was used to produce the Cliff Road CCMA, is published in the LBA Evidence Library.

01:09:50Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, [member of the public]. And I'll come very briefly to Mr. Freeman on that point. yes thank you chair and and thank you mr birch for your comments um we had a brief conversation before the meeting started and I've made a note I'll pick that up with the relevant officer and see uh what we can do to address your concerns whether there's more information we can make available so leave that with me okay thank you mr Freeman um and thank you again to everybody who's either uh sent in comments or spoken this morning um as we've been going uh an hour and five minutes now and the first item on our agenda is going to be I sense a chunky one and we're going to take a break now before we get started on that item and we will reconvene at 15 minutes past 11 members come on Jeff get move on okay

01:24:36Thank you members we will pick up again is this stream live again Wendy yeah Brilliant, thank you. Where are we? So we've done public speaking. Councillor Hayward, welcome. Do you have any declarations to make? Um, bear with me one moment. I suppose it's in relation to agenda item 7. Yeah, agenda item 7, um, um, Devon County Councillor For Axminster and also an employee of Axminster Town Council. So it's, uh, both are, um, effects in our eye. Don't affect me any more than anyone else. Thank you.

01:25:23Okay, thank you, Councillor Hayward. Those are noted. Agenda item five then. In, I think, possibly a first since I have sat on SPC, we have a matter of urgency to come to later in the meeting, which is agenda item nine on the revised bid from Exmouth Rugby Club.

01:25:45So we'll come to that later on today. Agenda item 6, confidential or exempt items. There are none. Which brings us to today's blockbuster. Agenda item 7, the East Devon Local Plan, consultation, feedback, timetable and future work plan from page 12 on your agenda, members. And we'll start with Mr Freeman, please.

01:26:10Thank you, Chair. So this report seeks to feedback on the first stage of Regulation 19 consultation and looks towards the work programme for considering and responding to those comments and making any consequential changes to the plan that arise from that process. So members will be aware the first round of Regulation 19 consultation concluded at the end of March and we recorded 3,510 individuals or organisations making comments on the plan through that process.

01:26:41And appended to this report, you'll see a fairly detailed breakdown of those responses that were received by policy, and where possible, we've indicated the numbers of responses in relation to those issues raised. The key themes and issues are highlighted in paragraph 3.3. You'll see, as has previously mentioned, a lot of responses in relation to site EXMO20, 1,100 responses, multiple petitions on that site, centred around concerns around biodiversity, flood risk infrastructure, and the procedures followed in relation to that site, many of which have been raised by public speakers already today.

01:27:24Concerns around the housing strategy and the housing requirement figure and questions primarily from the development industry around us only meeting 80% of the standard method and calls for us to meet the full need as identified in the new standard method. And respondents also criticising the step trajectory and over-reliance on a single new settlement as part of that. Again, I think those comments were primarily from development industry respondents.

01:27:54Um the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy so there's broad support for focusing growth in the west end and main centers but concerns raised about uh under classification of certain settlements uh fenitens mentioned you've also heard concerns from public speaker earlier about wimple and whether or not that should have been classified differently um and under representation of eczema strategic role um has been raised as well although I think you heard some public speakers suggesting that there's potentially too much growth being put there as well.

01:28:27So there are contradictory views on some issues within these responses. Infrastructure and viability is another key theme. So many responses highlighting the need for stronger commitments to infrastructure delivery, particularly healthcare, education, and utilities. Members will be aware of our relatively limited role in infrastructure delivery more as one potential source of funding through SIL and Section 106 agreements rather than a direct deliverer of a lot of those infrastructure requirements.

01:28:57But we have made clear commitments within the plan to work with providers to align delivery alongside housing and growth through the plan. Environmental protection is obviously a key trend as well, concerns about impacts on biodiversity, climate resilience, landscape protection through the plan. um sustainability appraisal and legal compliance issues raised and concerns about um alignment with neighborhood plans and the community engagement that's been undertaken um obviously much more detail in in the appendix I'm not going to go through that in in detail but happy to pick up any on particular issues or comments members have as as debate progresses um the report then goes on to also talk about uh the responses received from statutory consultees and you'll see at paragraph 5.4 we've tried to draw out some of those issues that have come through that just to quickly touch on those in terms of national landscapes I think this was flagged up before before we even launched a consultation that at the time we were producing this version of the plan and debating it through the committee there were changes afoot in terms of the requirements in

01:30:04Terms of national landscapes we've moved from this duty to have regard to the national landscape to a duty to further the purposes of the national landscape which isn't reflected in the plan and so it's not a surprise that that's been raised by various parties including Natural England so we need to respond to that wind energy is is another issue that's been raised by statutory consultees so we need to consider whether we remove the areas identified on the proposals map for wind energy noting the changing requirements within the different versions of the NPPF as we've moved from the 23 version to the 24 version and then because we're going through the transitional arrangements we need to comply with the 23 version but also have some regard to the direction of travel within the 24 version so there's an issue to address there.

01:30:56As we were aware there's more evidence coming in terms of transport issues the new community so some of the comments in relation to those issues and no surprise we knew that there were gaps there that needed to be filled um health care so um we're obviously aware I think members will recall from discussions around still spend at the previous meeting about issues around lack of capacity in primary health care in the west side of the district obviously members committed a significant sum of money to um improving those issues but we need to explore those further with the nhs and and through the infrastructure delivery plan water quality issues members will be aware the water cycle study is a bit of an ongoing piece of work that's taking much longer than anticipated we are now making some progress though and I'm confident we will have a final version of that study for the second round the regulation 19 consultation which will help to address some of the comments raised by the environment agency in their responses to date heritage issues so there's a number of issues in

01:31:59Terms of impacts on listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments um in terms of the site allocations um we're picking those up with site promoters many of whom have already come back and said that they've done much of the work that's that's required in terms of that uh and are sharing that work with us so we're making good progress in hopefully gathering the information needed to address those issues um and as I think I highlighted at the last meeting in terms of the level two strategic flood risk assessment uh we were aware that there were a couple of sites that were added in at quite a late stage that hadn't been through that process so that work is is ongoing to address those issues um so a lot of this work is is is ongoing and in hand in terms of addressing the issues that have been raised um through through that that process uh and that feeds into the work program uh which I'll come on to um just to flag up um some changes that

01:32:54Happened uh I think literally the day before we finalized this report um which I flagged up paragraph 4.2 in the report about uh the the sort of scope of future changes to the plan so I've included the text that's gone into the planning practice guidance about two-stage regulation 19 consultation processes um that flags up that um you know there is a need to minimize changes to the plan If we want to remain within those transitional arrangements for the introduction of the new version of the NPPF, and it says, you know, Regulation 19 may be taken as the date of a subsequent round of consultation commenced where there are significant changes fundamentally.

01:33:39So we need to be mindful of that. It doesn't necessarily mean that we can't make significant changes. We just need to be mindful of the impact of that, particularly in terms of housing numbers. If we cannot progress under the transitional arrangements, it obviously makes the whole situation substantially worse if we've then got to increase our housing numbers by 25% and allocate more sites, which will raise more issues around infrastructure impact on the environment as the sites that we've already got, which are raising those concerns.

01:34:08Um so so just speeding through uh the remainder of the report um I think the later sections go on to talk about uh the further evidence gathering that's underway some of which I've touched on so the new community master plan work is is progressing um so confident that we'll have that work uh complete and ready for the consultation alongside uh financial assessment work viability work and infrastructure delivery plan etc for that greater extra transport study work continues to progress with discussions through consultants who are modelling transport impacts not just of the new community but of the wider growth within the district and particularly those impacts on junctions 29 and 30 of the M5, the A3O52, Clisset-Mary roundabouts and the airport roundabouts on the A30 which have previously been flagged as sort of pinch points where there are particular issues that we need to be mindful of with that work. I've mentioned the water cycle study and strategic flood risk assessment work other things to mention in terms of pebble bed he says the air quality assessment and mitigation strategy that works progressing well

01:35:17With the consultants and again confident that we will have an approach to that that addresses the concerns that have been raised in time for the consultation the second regulation 19 consultation in October we've also got consultants recommissioned to update the housing needs assessment work members will recall that that work was done quite early in the process we need to make sure that that's up to date at the point of submission so there's a review and update of that obviously the total housing numbers are set by government and the standard method so that's not going to change but it's about understanding our needs and making sure the policies reflect that so duty to cooperate and statements of common ground that works ongoing as well in terms of responding particularly to those statutory consultations consultees rather and neighbouring authorities in terms of issues that have been raised and trying to nail those down and get statements of common ground ready to ideally accompany the second regulation 19 consultation so that we've got an agreed position with bodies like the Environment Agency, Natural England, neighbouring authorities etc

01:36:27To accompany that, having worked through the issues that have been raised. So turning to the proposed timetable in Section 8, I won't go through that in detail, but you'll see that the intention is still to be in a position to have a revised version of the plan to bring to members in September or October ready for a second Regulation 19 consultation um to follow on uh from that alongside um the consultation at regulation 19 on the master plan for the second new community and the additional evidence work that's going on in relation to that um so that's where we are um just turning back to the recommendations you're obviously asked to um note the responses received through the consultation are set out in the report in the appendix to it there's also a recommendation about um while through the reports sort of flag up issues that we've picked out through the consultation that we're specifically uh turning our attention to um but also whether or not there are further issues uh that are not flagged or

01:37:36Or particular emphasis on on issues that are flagged that members want us to look at to bring a future reports to the meeting to allow members to consider those those issues and consequential changes to the plan I would however ask members to obviously have regard to the change to the planning practice guidance with regard to two-stage regulation 19 consultations and note the limitations that that may place on us particularly if we want to remain within those transitional arrangements and comply with that lower housing number figure through this plan period uh thank you chair okay thank you mr Freeman we are going to do questions first so questions not statements and I will pick you up members if you misbehave on this point I've done it before and I'll do it again um and we will start outside of committee with questions please from Councillor Everyone's put their hand down Councillor Faithfull then barlow then aurora thank you chair I hope this is a question I am concerned about that on the appendix document

01:39:00In brackets we've got who is saying what on the agenda document we don't seem to have that and I'm concerned about I mean I'm just looking at item 3.3 and it's the wording that's being given where like spacious we've just had a whole lot of public is there some way that we can identify who is saying what in the the wording of this agenda document because it's suggesting there's a what am I looking at strategic spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy and and also housing strategy there's talking about overwhelming support for one thing and it's like what is that the public or is that the developers and this is what I'm concerned about is this seems that some things would seem to be contradicting ourselves in there and saying everyone's saying this and everyone's saying something else it's like but if you listen to who's saying what yes you've got the developers saying one thing and you've got the is there some way that we can show that this is what is being said rather than a general comment because it does seem to concern me some of the things that

01:40:43Are written in this agenda document thank you chair there's three things I'll say on that before I come to mr Freeman um one I had the same comment when I first saw these papers at chairs briefing um ed pointed out to me uh contemporaneously that um developers uh I'm not going to use the word I was going to use their developers uh are the public they're just a subset of the public um and three that the uh the appendix report here is part of the agenda um it's worth bearing in mine clearly you've found it Peter um you know these these these documents have to be read together um miss Freeman I believe I'm right in saying the summary report is what's actually going to go up on the evidence library as our reflection on the consultation is that right and therefore the document that's sort of the most public facing version of this will be clear about where those comments have come from yes so it's the appendix is is basically the document that

01:41:48Will form part of the evidence library we're working on actually publishing the comments themselves as well um so the intention is to make those available and then it will be completely transparent in terms of um who said what um obviously um private details being being redacted as necessary um but as as the chair said I mean we need to consider the comments regardless of whether they've come from developers or the public or from whoever they've come from.

01:42:19Everybody's got their own interests in this process, but we need to consider all of the comments that we've received. In a lot of cases, I think it will be clear. So as I said, you know, in terms of the summary report, I picked out the point about that some parties had said we should be meeting the higher, the new standard method housing figure. So I think it's fairly clear that that's not residents saying that.

01:42:43That's the development industry in that area, which I tried to highlight in my presentation because I was conscious that that had been raised. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider those comments. We still have to consider and respond to those comments, even if they're not the views of residents. So I think it's difficult to go through and flag that up. But we have tried to do that in terms of the appendix and you'll see in places there are comments which say developers, planning consultants or residents.

01:43:14And that is the summary of the responses received that will go in the evidence library. Can I come back with a second question? Quickly. Well, as you know, I've got a petition running wanting the targets reduced. because apart from anything else we haven't got a hope in hell's chance of delivering the targets the government are setting will this council or this committee be willing to get in touch with our MPs and put across that question can we can they fight to get these numbers down to realistic figures because even central government with their one and a half million homes seem to have dropped the timescale they want the houses built in because they've realized they can't deliver it. So we're still working to this ridiculous target. And that is why we're upsetting all these residents. So can we get in touch with our MPs and say, this is ridiculous. Why are we doing this? Thank you, Chair. I think it's probably fairly safe to say our MPs already know that we think that, because we tell them quite regularly, usually whenever we speak to

01:44:27Them about anything to do with planning um but I suppose I could send an email and remind them um so that's fine I'll take that as an action thank you peter um Councillor Bardo uh thank you chair um well interesting on that point of course if you went back to them now they'd have to drop them by 20 to get to the one we're actually targeting now anyway so I think that's probably unlikely um to ed really are you surprised you've obviously done this several of times before this is my first time at this side of a Local Plan are you surprised by the amount of criticisms especially from the statutory bodies that we've got on this or is it pretty much what you were expecting going forward and also just want to clarify for the members of the public and that the final iteration of the plan will come to this committee in about September and that's when it will that will be the final final one any changes you're going to make that's

01:45:28Going to be the the deadline for that and a little bit of a statement but just wanted to thank all the members of this committee because I know what you're doing is almost impossible and trying to keep as many people happy and the government at the same time so well done but don't forget the little bits that need changing thank you thank you Councillor Barlow mr Freeman um I mean in terms of the amount of contributions I suppose um there's a couple of issues I suppose I'm surprised on some some not I mean obviously I I hadn't um for example expected the environment agency to be objecting to us not having the motorcycle study because it's not a requirement to have a motorcycle study um so that surprised me um but I suppose they know we're producing one so that's perhaps what prompted that some of the some comments around sort of heritage issues I suppose I'm surprised at the veracity of some of them but then I think when we've been through them and seen you know some of the evidence that we've seen that perhaps they haven't reviewed

01:46:43And we're sort of flagging that up to them and saying here look at this look at that And I'm hoping that's going to help to address some of those concerns. But there is some further work, particularly on some sort of archaeological issues, further survey work that's needed. But a lot of that information already exists. So am I surprised by the comments? Some of them, but a number of them not, really.

01:47:06I mean, we knew that there was some work that still needed to be done in terms of Stage 2 SFRA, for example. we knew there were some sites that hadn't been through that process because they were added in quite late we knew we didn't have the water cycle study we knew that the HRA required some some further work so so no in terms of the comments on on those sorts of issues that was was expected um so so no not not massively surprised but but yeah there were a few things in there that I wasn't expecting um but uh you know we will work through those issues it's all part of the the process and refining the plan and getting it to be the best plan it can be by the time we submit it for examination. But yes, in terms of the final iteration, I need to pick this up with Wendy in terms of dates for committee meetings, but yes, I think we're still on track to have the final iteration before the committee sort of late September at the latest first week in October

01:48:04So that we can launch the consultation in October. very quickly one final point is once you stop this in 2027 and the plan is made and everyone breathes a huge salary do you start again on the next iteration of the Local Plan yes basically um I mean I I fully expect that because well assuming we can proceed and the plan is found sound and the transitional arrangements I think we have to expect that we will be asked to undertake an early review um because the government's direction of travel as we know is the higher standard method figures in terms of housing numbers um so the fact that it's going through the transition arrangements is likely to lead to an early review equally we need to understand where we are in terms of local government reorganization at that point by 2027 you know we could be well into that that that process and heading towards a new organization and be planning on a different geography altogether so lots could change between now and then I try not to think that too too far ahead and focus on

01:49:12This plan thank you Ian Councillor Aurora Bailey thank you chair it's not actually a question but I wonder if I may speak because I'm actually you may speak later when we get to debate if it's not a question I want to stick to questions now for this period if that's all right thank you so when can I speak on it then I will come to non-committee members when we get to debate in a moment okay thank you chair thank you Councillor Roy collins question please um okay can we just leave wendy to um handle that quickly then um wendy will sort you out roy you don't need to go anywhere um oh he's gonna okay at a previous meeting last year, I asked that the public be notified, adverts be put in papers, etc about the process of this procedure we're going through with this plan now I've seen nothing, nothing at all we have one in Honnington, Honning 18, and that's people still don't know about it the town council have not been consulted

01:50:44And the public you have got 10 responses to that which I was quite surprised about and why hasn't this been done or perhaps some public meeting put on I mean this is so important you're going on to 40, 42 people need to be consulted more than what you've done. 3,000 people replying it, and very many, in my opinion. I mean, when I'd done one before, I think there were 20,000 people objected when Cranbrook was first muted.

01:51:24Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Collins. Mr Freeman? Well, what I would say is we have a published statement of community involvement which sets out how we undertake consultation in terms of planning documents, which has previously been agreed by the committee and the consultation was undertaken in accordance with that um I think when the uh committee considered the uh version of the plan for consultation there was reference in the report to the consultation how we were going to run that consultation how that was going to operate so that was all carried out in accordance with the agreement of the committee with regard to that um with regard to town and parish councils I know we definitely wrote to all town and parish councils to highlight the consultation to them So we definitely engaged with them and, as I say, carried it out in accordance with the instructions of the committee through the statement of community involvement and previous reports.

01:52:19Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Councillor Hookway, did you have any questions that you wanted to ask? Yes, thank you, Chair. Just quickly, you have considered greenfield sites entirely in this plan. Are you intending to consider any brownfield sites? um we have considered both brownfield and greenfield sites um there was an urban capacity assessment undertaken which is part of the evidence of the plan that looks at potential opportunities for brownfield sites to come forward um the call for sites also called for both brownfield and greenfield sites um the problem we have and why the sites for allocation are quite heavily skewed towards greenfield sites which I think is probably what you're alluding to is is that the very few brownfield sites were put forward through those processes and we don't have anywhere near the number of brownfield sites we'd like to have in order to to redress that that balance as a district we don't have a large heritage of of old industrial sites or previously developed sites to be redeveloped and so that leaves us largely with

01:53:33Greenfield sites as their allocations which is unfortunate but is just a product of where we are as a district but we have looked at brownfield opportunities and brought them forward where we can.

01:53:50Thank you Mr Freeman. Committee members questions? I saw Councillor Levine's hand some time ago and then I will come down at the table on my right with Councillors Bailey, Fernley and Young and then other Bailey. Thank you Chair. And numbers. I understand about the housing strategy that most residents would not like the housing number increase. Some public would. But have we got a magic wand with which we can produce 5,000 extra houses out of a hat?

01:54:25And my other question is I've looked at the I've carried out an ugliness parade I've looked at all the sites that we have considered and our people reacted on and discovered that on average 22 people object to any given site and that leaves four sites which are way out of that league we've got EXMO20 we've got Honiton we've got Faniton and we've got Wimple. So my question to you is, A, why do you think more people have complained about those sites than others? And do you think we should revisit those sites? Thank you.

01:55:11The answer to the first question, Councillor Levine, is no. The second question, I'll come to Mr Freeman. Yes, well, on the first question, I think I've previously said, I think meeting the the new revised higher housing numbers would be extremely challenging for us as a district moving forward um I think I said that when I brought a report about those numbers at the time so at the moment I I don't have a solution to how we would meet those additional housing numbers um so I think it's important to to understand that and bear that in in mind that that that's not that's not an easy thing to address um in terms of why more people object to some sites than others um I mean some sites um are more challenging than others raise more issues than others uh some are in in larger settlements locations where there are more people affected than than others um so I don't think I don't think you can necessarily compare so for example a site in wimple for example is only going to have a finite number of people objecting to it because

01:56:20There's only a finite number of people live in wimple that would be affected whereas a sighted was likely to affect a much larger number of people so it's likely to get more objections um so there are lots of different factors in that I think it's difficult to to draw conclusions but I'm not by any means suggesting that we we shouldn't have regard to the volume of objections to particular sites and and take those comments seriously and and and reconsider those sites as appropriate um within you know the limitations I've made clear in terms of what we can change and what we can't um so yeah I mean we need to consider those comments and reconsider our position um all I'm saying is in as part of that process we need to be mindful of the consequences of revisiting those sites and changing those decisions if that's the view of the committee but I'm here to advise you it's for the committee to make those decisions but I would suggest not today um because we need to fully consider the responses that we've received the issues that

01:57:24Are raised but I'm keen to understand what particular points and issues or their particular sites you want us to look at again so that when we bring further reports to you we can advise you fully on the issues that have been raised that the the case for reconsidering those sites and potentially revisiting that decision and what the consequences of that are so that you can make informed decisions um I would be concerned if the committee started to make decisions about revisiting sites or changing sites today because you don't have that report you don't have that information in front of you so you're not in a position to do that today I would suggest thank you mr Freeman um question from me to you uh Councillor Levine um you mentioned EXMO20 were there any other site references specifically where the number of objections was above average or do you not have that to hand do you know which sites in Honiton feniton wimple I mean I can guess wimple um maybe we'll come back to you Councillor Levine but I I would be would be interested to

01:58:36Know which sites in Honiton and feniton um would be on that list uh I then promised I was going to come down the right hand side table so we'll start with Councillor Brian bailey please Thank you, Chair. I've got two questions. The first one is spatial strategy settlement. It seems to me to be a little bit contradictionary when it states there's broad support for development in the West and main centres.

01:59:04Well, living in the West, in one of the main centres, I am constantly approached by email and physically, when I walk down the street at the seat, by people who say, no, we're not keen on this whatsoever. So my first question is, how did you determine that the people had broad support for this? And obviously, with the people here today, are demonstrating that they do not have broad support for this.

01:59:26So this seems to be a contradiction in your report to the actual reality and the fact. And the second thing is environmental protection. Now, Exxon 20, for example, it's in the open countryside. It's right butting against the Pebblebed Heath. The left side of it is ancient woodland. Now, the environmental protection there seems to go against the policies of this council because if it was to be adopted, it's a disruptive policy.

01:59:57And the amount of carbon that's going to be produced by people driving an extra three or four miles via Budleigh Salston and Noel Hill Roundabout to get to Exmouth because the other alternative is St John's Road which is a single track, very narrow and very bendy, not practical and we've got Hallam Road which is where the new road is being built Is there a question here, Councillor Bailey, please?

02:00:20Well, my question is, I can't find that acceptable because it's going to be extra pollution That's not a question, Councillor Bailey. Well, that's what I'd like to know anyway.

02:00:31Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. That's fine, Councillor Bailey. One question there for you, Mr. Freeman. Yes, I think the question was about how did we determine that there was general support for the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy. I mean, I think the answer is taking the responses as a whole. We've got over 3,500 responses. Obviously, a number of them are from residents of Exmouth, and you may well be right, perhaps the majority of residents of Exmouth don't agree with that, but the majority of responses overall felt that the strategy was acceptable.

02:01:10So, in terms of focusing growth in the West End and main centres, that may well include many people who don't live in the West End and main centres. I don't know off the top of my head. But that is the outcome of the overall responses.

02:01:30Thank you, Mr Freeman. Thank you, Councillor Bailey. Councillor Brown, you didn't put your hand up. Councillor Fernley then.

02:01:37Thank you chair um it concerns it will be a question this concerns me when you read the report the volume of information that we don't appear to have it seems quite overwhelming that all this information has got to suddenly be squirreled into this report at what seems like the 11th hour having already made all of these decisions so I'm concerned for the workload is it possible to get all of this in for the timescale you're talking about and I thought you said that the water cycle study wasn't coming out till October you're saying that the plan has to be finished by September I got that wrong so future just on on the last point the consultation needs to go live in October so we'll need to bring all of the the final version of the plan for consultation all the materials the evidence including the water cycle study through the committee before then I'm hoping that will be around the end of september um but looking at dates I'm concerned some of the final meeting might end up being the start

02:02:49Of october depending on on dates so late september early october um for bringing that through um concerned by the workload uh yes I'm constantly concerned by the workload um but I mean uh I'm reassured by talking to the team and talking to matt only this morning um that the work is progressing on all of these these work streams some of them do rely on consultants as you've highlighted the water cycle study the air quality assessment on Pebblebed Heaths the transport study um so there are lots of moving cogs in in this piece but as things stand today I I think that timetable is is achievable um and we need to move forward as quickly as as we can to ensure that we're progressing the plan in accordance with the transitional arrangements while we still fall within those transitional arrangements.

02:03:41Obviously, the timetable will need to be kept under review each time we meet. I will try and update you in terms of where we are in terms of each of these different work streams. But I'd rather be working on an ambitious timetable that gets us through and the consultation out as quickly as possible. but will we as councillors there's going to be it feels like it's going to be a huge amount of work for us which is quite overwhelming when we're doing something that we all care about and at the area that we care about um yes I mean I think the discussions I've had so far with chair and vice chair have been about potentially having uh the the scheduled meeting that I think the next scheduled meeting is early september um so to try and bring what we can to that that meeting and then potentially two further meetings towards the end of september or potentially into early october um to go through all of the the information and the changes to the plan um so yes

02:04:47I mean I think we are going to be asking a lot of viewers committing terms of your time through september and into early october to to keep to that timetable look forward to some extra september meetings then members Councillor Jung that's unfortunate I've got three weeks holiday in September can we expand a bit on the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy including what is the definition of the West End and the main centers because I think we're getting into a muddle there and I don't understand under classification of certain settlements eg feniton and the under-representation of x-mas strategic role can you expand on those we're not revisiting mapping the west end before ed comes in on that one we tried we decided not to do it we're not doing it again jeff mr Freeman yes I mean in terms of the west end yeah I mean it's it's a sort of not normal area rather than a line on a plan it always has been and I think we concluded is better left that way from previous discussions we've had um I mean the main settlements I think

02:06:12I don't have them in front of me but are defined in in the in the plan and and through the uh role and function of settlements document that was brought through the committee numerous times over the last couple of years so um that that we purposefully brought that document through right at the start of this process because it's so fundamental to the strategy um so I would be concerned if members wanted to revisit that because that that turns the whole thing on its head in terms of um the strategy and where we're going um and while I appreciate some people don't agree with the the strategy that the consultation shows that there is general support for for the strategy of focusing growth in the west end and the main settlement so I I'm not sure the consultation responses even uh suggest that that needs to be revisited necessarily um but I think you would very quickly get into the territory of substantial changes that would take us outside of the transition arrangements if you wanted to revisit fundamental principles like that

02:07:14In terms of the plan. Sorry does that answer the questions? Yeah the I take it Expo is a main centre but it's not in the West End. It's the main centre it's the primary centre but it's is not in the west end yeah um so I I just need to clear that one up and also can you just expand on um under classification of certain settlements uh feniton I don't quite understand that and under under representation of Exmouth strategic strategic role um well I I think these are comments that have been made I don't think we've underrepresented eczema strategic role I think when we went through the site assessments we were um trying to identify opportunities wherever possible to accommodate growth in eczema for by far our biggest town and um and but it is quite constrained as as you've already heard in terms of the sites we have chosen never mind the ones we haven't um both in terms of environmental constraints but in particular but also in terms of infrastructure and other constraints so I think

02:08:29Think we tried to accommodate as much growth as we can at xmas but I think some parties are saying we should have done more perhaps not understanding those those constraints and issues I don't know um in in terms of other settlements I think um the comments have arisen I think fennison's noted there you've heard public speakers mention wimple earlier um I mean I think those particular settlements get picked up because they're on the railway line and therefore in terms of public transport are perceived to be better served than than a lot of other settlements of of similar size and therefore the suggestion is that they should have been treated higher in the settlement hierarchy um having said that the rail services to them both are are limited to some extent um it might be on the railway line but how frequent is the service how accessible is that to residents timing of that service has also been an issue I know in fennerton in terms of you know commuting in and out of the city is not as easy as it might appear

02:09:23From some of those settlements because of the frequency and timing of the service however having said that we did present at the Reg 18 stage quite early doors an option for strategic levels of growth in both of those settlements you will recall and asked specific questions about those as opportunities for more strategic growth which was quite strongly objected to by both of those communities and and ultimately wasn't taken forward by the committee So I think we can show an inspector and through an examination process of the plan that we've been through a logical process of considering those settlements and their role through the role and settlement study and have explored options for more strategic levels of growth and found them not to be acceptable.

02:10:11Thank you, Mr Freeman, for that comprehensive answer. Back down the other end of the table on my right, then Councillor Jess Bailey, then Councillor Davey, then Councillor Ledger.

02:10:19Thank you. My question is about the responses during the consultation, particularly from the statutory consultees. And it's not always clear to me in the report whether it's simply concerns that are being raised or whether it's more formally an objection and whether there's a difference um because concern presumably if statutory consultees raise formal objections we have to give more weight to that and an inspector would give more weight to that so it's just not quite clear to me from the report um whether they're objections or concerns um I I think to be honest in most cases there are objections about soundness of the plan that's how we asked people to phrase their their responses um but that doesn't mean that they can't be overcome they're not saying necessarily that they're insurmountable um that they need reassurance on particular points need to see further information further evidence on certain points to reassure them before they can can comment and more positively and say that the plan is sound um the consultation solicited responses on do you believe this this policy

02:11:36Is sound or not um so that's that's the basis upon which the comments have been made um apologies if that's not not clear from the report sorry I don't think it is actually clear in the report we can certainly pick that up before it gets published in the evidence base can't we correct me if I'm wrong but I think cancer just barely is referring to the officer report rather than in terms of where we summarize the statutory responses but um the intention would be to to publish the actual letters we've received from those consultees online ultimately so that will be clear. Okay thank you [member of the public]. Councillor Davey. Thank you and first I just want to say I found the report quite helpful particularly the separation of the responses we'd had and what people were actually calling for what kind of remedies if you like they'd suggested and so I'm interested in how many of these are going to lead to some kind of review. One is the definition of employment. That one caught my eye because I thought that's

02:12:49Quite interesting that they felt we'd focus too narrowly on, I think it was B3 types of employment, and we ought to be considering a wider range of employment when we look at employment land. So I was going to ask, are we going to review that? I think also the settlement boundary definition was felt to be somewhat vague and in need of clarity are we going to review that and in response to the public speaker we had this morning who made an interesting point about development within CCMAs the coastal change management areas to permit alterations and extensions perhaps and just restrict new development in those as he pointed out that could be a residents own risk and you know he made a valid point about that so I wonder if those three areas we we are planning at least to to review future I mean it's a certain set I'm in the committee's hands as to which If there are particular issues that you want us to address, I mean, I think we obviously need to consider all of the comments and have some kind of response.

02:14:11I hope we will ultimately have a sort of, you said we've done, sort of document that shows how we're responding to all of these points. I mean, some of them are perhaps not that significant. You mentioned about the definition of employment. Yeah, we can certainly look at that. It's just a tweak of text if we did need to make a change there. Changing settlement boundaries, I think, is perhaps fought with difficulties in terms of if we change the methodology, redrawing all the boundaries, going through all of that again and to what end.

02:14:41But we need to consider the comments that we've received and come to a view as to whether or not we would recommend any changes there. CCMAs, I mean, I did have a quick look at the policy earlier. I think it does permit extensions within the 50 to 100-year zone. I think it says extensions may be permitted perhaps we need to clarify that because may is putting some uncertainty there um so that's something we can certainly look at lots of those things I think are just little tweaks perhaps like for example the ccma one is a good example do we just need to move the word maybe and just say extensions will be admitted where appropriate or something um so things like that I think a minor um I think where I start to get concerned about making significant changes at this stage is is where we start you know the implications of potentially taking a site out on the housing numbers and things like that um we we just need to be mindful of and understand the cumulative impact of all of these changes in relation to

02:15:44The guidance um but ultimately you know I'm in your hands as committee in terms of changes and and the plan needs to be sound fundamentally and and and the best planet it can be thank you mr Freeman Councillor Ledger thanks very much chair um just to start with the point of information so uh limp 01 uh whim 08a uh whim 11 fen 08 artery 02 are all above average but they have under 35 comments and then you have EXMO20 which has 1100 which is significantly above average um my only question is under 5.5 um mr Freeman you say a substantive review can you define what a substantive review would be a question we would only get from you Councillor Ledger mr Freeman so the full sentence is at this stage of plan making it's not considered that substantive review of whether sites should be removed from the plan and not shown as allocations is appropriate um well I mean I think as I said a minute ago it to some extent it depends on the scale of the

02:17:10The site as well because um if we were taking out say a a site of only 10 houses in terms of the housing numbers it doesn't represent a massive problem because we gave ourselves headroom it's not ideal because we're obviously eating into that headroom um but but we did give ourselves some some headroom so it's just reducing that if we took out sites that were mounted to hundreds of homes then you know we may not not have a headroom when we think we should further to previous discussions um at which point you then into potentially looking at do you need to then find alternative sites those kind of levels of changes I think it would be quite a substantive review and that's when you then I start to then become concerned about the cumulative impact of those kinds of changes alongside others that we might need to make in order to address the soundness issues that are being raised to then submit the plan and whether or not we're then butting up against the new guidance I mentioned in the planning practice guidance about two-stage

02:18:19Regulation 19 consultations and which date of consultation will be taken of us as of us entering Reg 19 in terms of the statutory the um transition arrangement sorry um so we just need to be mindful of that I'm not saying you can't do it obviously you can um it's in your gift to to make those changes and if those changes lead to us falling out the transitional arrangements we would have to deal with the consequences of that but the consequences are that the housing numbers would go up by about 25 percent and we would have to revisit the site allocations on a much bigger scale than than you were perhaps envisaging um to try and meet those additional numbers and frankly from the work we've done I don't know where those additional sites would come from um so I have to caution you in terms of of that kind of substantial substantive review but I think uh going back to the the recommendations within this report if there are particular sites that members are now concerned about given what you now know um from the consultation responses

02:19:18Then uh highlight those we can take those away and we can bring you a report uh assessing those concerns the potential to make any changes and the implications of those changes because fundamentally my role is to advise you and make sure you make him have the information to make informed decisions um and I can't do that today on the hoof but if there are particular of the sites then happy to take that away and bring back a report and advise you at a future meeting thank you mr Freeman Councillor Ledger could you repeat that list more slowly please uh limp 01 whim oaa whim 11 fen 08 Ottery 02 and EXMO20 okay um Exmouth 17 115 responses must have missed that one and are you sure it was Ottery o2 and not 20 I don't see and I don't see an o2 in the report 20 not o2 okay thank you uh Councillor Ledger for checking that

02:20:48For us okay I don't recall any further hands with questions from committee thank you mr hamill in which case then we are going to move to uh debate uh and to start that off we have two uh statements to be read out from just one statement to be read out from members of the authority uh which wendy is going to do for us please thank you chair this is from Councillor Matt Hall. I am sure the type of comments received about the proposed new Local Plan will not come as a surprise to any of you. There in essence is the core of the problem with how local plans are being handled. Yes I am sceptic of how local plans are currently produced. Some of you may have even responded to my questionnaire that was sent to Eastham District Council four years ago when I was writing my dissertation on local plans being a failure in democracy.

02:22:03There are two ways in which a local planning authority can approach local plans. They can chase government numbers or they can do what is now taught, that it's local plans that are the vehicle which should help build, enhance and protect local communities. If a local planning authority chases numbers, it is unlikely to ever bring their residents with them. I appreciate I wasn't elected when this process was started, and I haven't attended or listened to all of your meetings, but I have never heard mention that the somewhat rule of the need X number of houses to get a new school.

02:22:48School. You need X number to get a new doctors etc. If local plans started with the premise of what do communities need then they are more likely to bring residents with you as you would be providing for their needs rather than negatively impacting them. This is true of many places including the site EXMO20 where it would appear to be a large amount of housing to most residents but not large enough to address financially the issues facing Eczema.

02:23:22So instead of helping better people's lives, there is a fair chance of this plan exacerbating already known infrastructure problems, which other than other local plans, there is a little credible way of delivering the much needed and longed for infrastructure improvements. Too often people say that if you don't have a Local Plan or it's not up to date this would lead to speculative development but when eczema for example is facing development almost completely around its land boundaries it is difficult for many to understand how the difference it is sorry let me let me start that again sorry too often people say that if you don't have a Local Plan or it's not up to date this would lead to speculative development but when eczema for example is facing development almost completely around its land boundaries it is difficult for many to understand and see the difference east end district council doesn't seem to be selling any benefits of this Local Plan outside the provision of affordable housing and we could spend a long time discussing what is affordable

02:24:36I am sorry to say that this is a plan that will please those in Whitehall, but will not help East Devon in the way that it could and should. This is sadly yet another missed opportunity. In conclusion, there remains all too often the concern that local plans are delivering numbers, not communities, which feeds the public perception that local plans focus too much on housing targets at the expense of community needs, leaving those communities feeling their voices are not being heard and the development is being imposed on them rather than to help them.

02:25:16While local plans are currently seen as essential for managing development and meeting housing needs, it's crucial to ensure that they are developed in a way that respects and understands the community character and needs, while making sure local people believe they are in a stake in and a proper role in the important decision-making process.

02:25:38Thank you. Thank you, Wendy. Members outside committee. Councillor, I'm going to start with Councillor Barlow this time, then we'll go to Councillor Faithfull and then Councillor Bailey.

02:25:53Thank you, Chair. I don't sit on this committee I'm sort of glad I don't um we know that's not true um I just wanted to say the time to choose the way you do a plan was two or three years ago when I first joined this council you can't change it at the 11th air you are where you are however you've got to look at as a district-wide thing not just individual sites at this stage in my opinion and and listen to the fact that should you change this and we go back you're then going to be looking for EXMO20 for instance five more sites that size that you've got one plus the one if you're going to remove EXMO20 so please I'm sure I don't need to tell you bear in mind that sometimes you just have to stick with what you've got and you can't change it because you've left it too late at this stage thank you thank you Councillor Barlow I won't comment on whether or not that's true but there we go Councillor Faithfull thank you chair uh just going back to the

02:27:07Same the subject but looking at the type of comments that were put across it's quite clear to me that different groups of people or community or whatever you want to call them responded and replied to different sections of the consultation and I really think it's really important that that is reflected in any thing that we put across it's quite clear that general residents in a community will focus on specific sites whereas developers quite clearly focus on a much broader section so you know I think that's how we get these sort of contradictory statements in our thing because of the way it's come across and I really think it's important that that is put across in anything that we put forward. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Faithfull. Councillor Aurora Bate. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to declare that I'm a ward Councillor For EXMO20.

02:28:26Right. I'd like to thank everybody from the public coming and speaking this morning. I think that's very good. Thank you. And I would like to have it noted that I support or what they've said um there is so many things with EXMO20 and it's all been said already so I don't want to take up the time now but I would just like to be noted that I support it as a ward member thank you chair thank you Councillor Bailey uh I saw nixon first so Councillor Hookway right uh I better make some decorations first chair if I may um I'm an Exmouth Town Council, a member representing Exmouth Litlam.

02:29:12I'm also a district, but I'm also a county council member representing the Exmouth and Budleigh Coastal Division. The thing that really concerns me, and I think I have to say, I don't envy anybody trying to produce a Local Plan because I think it is very inflexible. And I think at the moment my thoughts are that the process of doing the plan is actually driving the plan rather than thinking about the need for the right housing in the right place. I absolutely agree with Councillor Hall's comments about respecting community character and I think that in terms of Exmouth, Exmouth is a town that doesn't need EXMO20 what Exmouth needs is building in the existing location providing houses that meet the needs of the people and the community of the people is an aging basically an aging community at county this week we were talking about how we were going to provide for support and care and support for elderly populations and the main thing is keeping people in their own homes. Now within Exmouth I would suggest that we've actually got the wrong homes in the

02:30:39Wrong place. We have a lot of care homes, care homes are struggling, they're closing. People are asking for permission to convert those back to private dwellings. What I think we need to see is development of those places so that we have new modern energy efficient accessible properties that people can need we are seeing that happen in experts but only on a very small scale so what I would like the committee to consider please really is can we be a little bit more flexible in the way that we are doing because if we continue with the existing way of looking at it the existing structure we may provide a plan that is suitable for Westminster and civil servants but it's not suitable for the changing needs of our community for the future and I really want to know is how we're going to design a plan that will do that. Thank you, Chair.

02:31:42Thank you, Councillor Hoekwake. Councillor Roy Collins. Thank you, Chair. I think the committee should be listening to the objectives and reject some of these sites and show some compassion to the people of East Devon. They clearly don't want some of these sites. The way we can get round it by getting more houses is to increase the density of the existing sites we've got. Some sites would be suitable for apartments and flats. You get an awful lot of people living there in those types of development. People don't want gardens and large areas of just wasteland. A lot of it's just wasted. You're not making very good use, I don't feel, of the land. The land should be, the density of houses could be increased.

02:32:36A third would make very little difference perhaps if you doubled it it might be too much but that's what I feel it should be making better use thank you thank you Councillor Collins coming into committee then who wants to go first I saw jeff out of the corner of my eye sorry ollie Councillor Jung yeah um we're being asked to identify any areas where they would like office advise on potential changes to the plan that are not already being considered in the work program I've got a list here of what I would like and some have already been discussed CCMA is one area I would like to have more discussions on or some study on water quality and the issues with with southwest water is possibly my number one priority.

02:33:45Exmouth development, it's a very hard choice with choosing developments in Exmouth. It's surrounded by water on two sides, SSSI on another side, and other villages that would be swallowed up by Exmouth if it goes the other way. So very hard choices in Exmouth. And Exmouth councillors are saying, look at development within the town. I know we've looked at it and we have got tricky issues with Exmouth because the town centre is in flood zone, various other issues with Exmouth as well.

02:34:37So very difficult choices there. Duty to cooperate with other councils. Other councils are saying, please give us some sites for development. um we we perform um with providing more housing than pretty well anywhere anywhere in the southwest I think our percentage is that over a 10-year period was 13 percent and anywhere else around here was six percent so we're double we're performing double to all the other areas so we we need to um highlight that the duty cooperate and ensure that um we do cooperate but that they need to understand our difficulties in uh providing development and that's it and that's it yes thank you Councillor Jung um Councillor Davey thank you chair um I'll do a couple of soft points. First, then I'll come to the elephant in the room. So first point is about wind energy.

02:35:56I noticed Ed's points on the issues and actions there. So I do think maybe we could consider removing areas identified for wind energy and simply equate it with solar with the same kind constraints impact on the landscape you know the visibility and so on and and apply the same criteria there and I know the complications between the 2023 version of the plan against which we will the inspector will look at our plan and the 2024 one but I think the inspector would take the point that the The goalposts have moved in that respect, and it would be nonsensical to apply to strictly the provisions of the 23 plan.

02:36:58So that's my first point. I think we need to look at that. Second point is one of the allocations we made, which I recall making, was the site of Exmouth Police Station in the middle of Exmouth, which we thought was a lovely, sustainable location for some relatively high-density housing. We thought more could be fitted on there than this was suggested. And I've now seen an application for a new police station on the site, so we've lost that one as far as I can see.

02:37:31So that is one that we are going to have to find another way to provide those houses. There wasn't a huge site, but it was a brownfield site, Councillor Hookway. And now I'm going to come to EXMO20. I take Ed's point that he doesn't want a substantive review of the sites in the plan, but there clearly are some that have raised a huge number of objections, and I think we have to take account of that.

02:38:05My recollection is that EXMO20 wasn't put forward by officers and it was councillors who persuaded them to look at it again because we felt it was an alternative to the sites to the west of Hullam Road, the northwest of Hullam Road, which did seem to us incredibly unsustainable.

02:38:29The point has been made about sustainability and the distance from Exmouth Town Centre, and that is a point I've frequently made, that although Exmouth is a sustainable location, depending on where you are, the further out you go, the less sustainable it becomes. And I have said there are parts of Exmouth that are probably closer to Limston than that Exmouth town centre. I mean, we do sometimes measure from the parade of shops at Brixington.

02:39:05And we do have to remember that there are smaller pockets of services provided. But the point was made about Exmouth train station. I'm a 25-minute walk from Exmouth train station, and I would regard myself as almost living in the centre of Exmouth, about a third of the way up Harlem Road. So there are issues there. There's also, and I think very importantly, the proximity to the national landscape and particularly the Pebblebed Heaths.

02:39:44And I notice the very first point in the issues and actions is to review allocations within or adjacent to a national landscape. So I think that officers have understood that we may need to review those in the light of change guidance on how we approach national landscapes. So I would like to suggest that we do review EXMO20. I won't say 1,100 people can't be wrong. Well, I won't even quote the last election. But I would say if we don't do it now, when are we going to do it?

02:40:32And it might be better to just fight the bullet and do it now. I think we need to show that if people are going to make objections, that we either show that those have been heard and we have taken action on them, or we come up with a robust reason why we feel that those objections can either be overcome or that for various reasons they don't have validity.

02:41:04But I do think that we have to have a good hard look at EXMO20. Again, I'm not saying take it out, but I do think we need to consider all the issues that that has thrown up and the large number of objections that it's attracted. I'm going to jump the queue slightly, as it's my prerogative to do as the chair, because this issue is going to come up sooner or later.

02:41:36And I, like I imagine, many members of the committee have spent a great deal of time thinking about EXMO20, among others, far more than, frankly, I ever wanted to, given that I didn't vote for it in the goddamn first place. And a number of members of this committee did, who are now saying that they want to talk about taking it out. I think [member of the public] probably sitting to my left quietly thinking, I told you so, in relation to that site specifically.

02:42:07I want to highlight a number of Councillor Levine's numbers as we're talking about EXMO20, as statements of fact more than a reflection of my view, because quite frankly, I'm not sure what my view on EXMO20 is. um Exmouth currently has allocated 1,455 homes in the plan as it stands today um that's compared to about 15,000 that are in the settlement uh today according to uh the 2021 census um which means it's getting a growth rate uh as things stand of about 10 percent not huge not tiny EXMO20 is 700 homes it's nearly half of that entire allocation if we take EXMO20 out Exmouth is going by five percent which is and I will admit I haven't looked at all of the numbers in extreme detail but that's got to be less than pretty much every other settlement in the settlement hierarchy it's less than my own home in Wimple with 83 against 500 existing houses that's nearly 20%, four times higher for a settlement that's got 500 homes, 30 times less than Exmouth. If we're talking about volume of consultation

02:43:27Responses, again using census data, the number of responses to the Exmouth site is about 3.1% of the population. It's not altogether dissimilar to the 1.8% of the population in Wimple that objected to those sites and I'm citing Wimple as the example because that's my ward but this this applies to lots of other places in East Devon as well that the comparison holds. If we're talking about reviewing EXMO20 I don't think we can in good faith only review EXMO20. Yes I will accept it it has its own problems. Yes I will accept it's of an order of magnitude larger than some of the other sites um that maybe we put into that same box um perhaps those that the Councillor Ledger listed earlier um but if if committee seriously wants to look at what the case for keeping or booting EXMO20 is I don't think it's a sound decision for us to only look at EXMO20 I think we need to look at the other sites that have that same level of objection that that would be my view um there we go having made that provocation I'm now going to

02:44:44Go back to the list of speakers that I had uh and I have councillors uh hayward then ledger then jess bailey thank you chair um last week I had the pleasure of listening to um angela rayner and the previous government had some insane housing targets this new government has some sane housing targets and she says there's no excuses direct quote no excuses not to deliver 1.5 million homes so everyone dwell on that no excuses so we in East Devon find ourself of a beautiful rural district most of which is covered in a unb SSSIs Pebblebed Heath you can't build in the sea so it constrains where you can build um and I really don't want to have to go back to my own parish, and it always ends up being quite parochial, my own part of the patch, because Axminster's done its bit. We've heard from Wimple earlier, and I appreciate Chair, that's your patch, having 80 homes, potentially an extra 160 cars moving through Wimple. Well, Axminster has grown by 50%. It hadn't saved our high street, hadn't reduced

02:46:01Antisocial behaviour. It hadn't brought economic prosperity. And now this plan is proposing another 1,500 homes, another 3,000 vehicles. It took me 20 minutes to travel from one side of Exminster to the other to get here today. 20 minutes to move about half a mile. Now, 1,100 comments on EXMO20. And to be fair, I don't see anyone of those comments commenting about 11 or 1500 homes in Axminster. It's always parochial. You don't like it. I don't want 1500 extra homes in Axminster. The local development company has already mothballed one of its sites because it can't sell the houses it's trying to build. It just stopped building. So what insanity, we talk about doing the same thing over again, makes you think that by building another 1500 homes that no one wants in a town that's already constrained and creaking at the seams and almost feral in terms of antisocial behaviour, which I spend every day of my working life dealing with, needs another 1,500 homes. But the person in charge at Westminster is saying there are no excuses. And if we do not proceed under a plan

02:47:18And Councillor Hall's statement was exactly spot on, and every speaker here has been spot on today, But we don't have a choice. We can write letters to ministers. We can issue petitions. It will make not one jot of difference. The national government has decided this is how you do a Local Plan. These are the numbers you want. Now, at the moment, we have this transitionary benefit, advantage.

02:47:41But if we don't take advantage of that, as Councillor Levine says, we have an extra 5,200 houses to find. So EXMO20, you were going to get 800. well congratulations you've now got to find 1,000 we'll just build apartments and go higher this is the reality no one on this committee likes making this decision we knew this was coming and when we do this there will be another cycle after this and another cycle it's perpetual so we need some degree of pragmatism none of us want to cover East Devon fields beautiful landscapes in houses but this committee has an obligation and a duty so I believe taking sites out it you know I would love each of those 1200 people 1100 people to write on a postcard to me my address is on the website tell me where else you want to build them and then allow me to write to every person in that area and say guess what 1100 people want you to have the houses because they don't want it on their patch. They've got to be built somewhere. That's the reality. And we will go round in

02:48:50Circles, taking bits out, putting bits back in. But if you take out EXMO20 and 1,100 people think we should, then I'll attest, take all of Axminster's 1,500 out too, and then find where we're going to put another 2,300. And by the time we work that out, it will be 7,500 we need to find. and that's this is just a personal statement it's not meant to be contentious but it is contentious this is the reality and chair you know it everyone in this room knows it so we just need to find a solution because the alternative is not palatable thank you thank you Councillor Hayward to add some uh some more color to that uh I asked uh ai to summarize the ai report and tell me uh which of these sites people had specifically asked to be taken out of the plan so I there was a consultation response saying we want you to take this site out of the plan that came to 31 of the 72 sites in the plan had a comment to that effect which comes to nearly 3 000 houses if we just

02:49:57Blanket took all of those out then if you add Councillor Hayward's 1500 in Axminster you know I'm sure we could find some other sites that maybe implied that they wanted it to be taken out rather than directly said it. We'd be gutting the plan if we took all of them out, certainly. Who's next? Councillor Ledger.

02:50:21Thanks very much, Chair. I don't really know how much I can follow there. I think we spoke about earlier that we're going to just move straight on into once we've completed this plan, we're going to move on to the next plan. I don't think that's the case. We've got local government reorganisation coming down the track. This is probably East Devon's last Local Plan. This is probably the last Local Plan that will be decided by us members that are actually physically local to the location.

02:50:50The next Local Plan will probably be decided by people, well, possibly North Devon, possibly West Devon, depending on how it all gets split up. So we do have a duty, I believe, to get this right and to discuss every matter that we feel necessary and I think all of the councillors on this committee have a fault in the matter that EXMO20 is where it is at the moment. I think most of the people in this room can attest and say yes this isn't an ideal site and it shouldn't have been included at the time. The officers themselves said it shouldn't be included. We as members have made that decision to push forward and we have to be accountable to the members of the public that are coming here so animated today and making completely valid points that we're in this position. Now I would like to see Mr Freeman come back with extra detail on options available to this committee to get us out of this mess and whether there are anything anything that we can

02:51:54Do without pushing it to the fact that we will be then going into these additional housing numbers that we then have to take on in the transitional arrangements but I think we all need to take it on our heads that this is our own faults that it's in this position right now and I'm more than happy to sit my hand up and speak to people and say this is the fault of the committee that we're in this position and we need to try and see what we can do to rectify it completely taking on the points of Councillor Hayward that the housing will need to go somewhere I think the the difference with EXMO20 is that it's not a recommendation from officers to move forward the site it wasn't even a secondary site in its entirety but then do we need to take another look at all of the sites that we put in against the advice of officers happy to recommend here along with the recommendations okay so that's a proposal which triggers some constitutional requirements can you

02:52:55Be clear about what exactly you're proposing please Councillor Ledger. So I'm happy to take on the comments of Councillor Jung Councillor Davey and as well as the comments you made earlier Chair that you would like it to be wider to the list that was related earlier I don't know how to word that into a coherent sentence that would be good for a proposal and I will look to Damien to help me out with it but I think we do need to have a report come come back and that's the steer that we're giving to mr. Freeman that we want to look at the areas listed earlier as well as the the the sites the the limpo one wipo a wimp 11 funny oh a Ottery 20 EXMO20 and extra 17 because I can't seem to know the difference between 15 and 115 comments okay thank you Councillor Ledger so I I see there are hands I acknowledge there are hands I have to bottom out what Councillor Ledger is proposing and seek a seconder before I can come

02:54:05To people to comment on it because that's what the constitution says um so if I'm understanding what you've said correctly Councillor Ledger you want the paper that comes back in the september meeting to look at ccmas the water cycle study which will come anyway um people might have to help me out here with exactly what councillors young and davy said the duty to cooperate issues wind power wind energy yep I think I think that was possibly everything from councillors young and davy and then in terms of the sites that you want officers to look at the case for taking out Do you want that to be, because initially you said all of the sites that we put in against officers' recommendation, and then we came back to the number that have an above average level of objection.

02:55:00So the number that have an above-average level objection, which is, for the benefit of the tape, EXMO20 and 17, WIM 08 and 11, FENI 08, OTRI 20, and LIMPO 1.

02:55:24Have we captured that, colleagues on my left? Okay, so we know what is being proposed, at least. Does anybody wish to second that? Mr Hunter looks like he wants to say something. Well, Chair, to be honest with you, I was going to suggest a five-minute break whilst the Councillor Has to think about exactly how he wants to word his proposal and everybody else can have a moment to nip to the loop, perhaps.

02:55:51A proposal has been made, so I do have to seek a seconder. Is that wanting to second, Councillor Bailey? Yes, please, Chair. Okay. Do you want to say anything? I just like to say I agree with Dan and Ollie and Jeff. And a lot of the residents from Exxon have come to, I feel, as an Exxon of Council, I ought to support them. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Brian Bailey.

02:56:21I've had a number of hands go up. There has been suggestion to my left. We have been going now another hour and a half. Do we want to keep going and bottom this out or take a break for five minutes? Five minutes. We'll return at five to. Bear in mind, members, you can't talk about this during the break.

03:02:45OK, thank you, members. And counts. Oh, no, we don't have Damien. We do now have Damien. OK, thank you, members. And Councillor Ledger, do you have a wording for us? So, point one will be as listed in the committee report and remain, and then point two, it will just have the amendment of the following wording added to the end of the recommendation. So it will state that these areas are as follows, the water cycle study, CCMAs, duty to cooperate, wind energy areas, and the sites LIMP01, WIMP08A, WIMP11, FENI08, Ottery20, Exmouth15, EXMO20, and any further sites that officers feel that should be brought back.

03:03:38Did you mean Exmouth17, not Exmouth15? I will get these numbers right at some point yeah I I think I think we have the the the list well established on the tape by now um okay so that is the proposal as it stands um Councillor Bailey are you still happy seconding that thank you okay thank you uh we will come to debate on those now I know Councillor Hayward has to leave imminently so I'm going to come to him first I've got nothing more to add, Chair.

03:04:15Okay, thank you. I saw Councillor Fernley's hand. Thank you, Chair. Could you just repeat the last line of, did you say, and officers? And any further sites that officers feel should be brought back.

03:04:36Thank you. That's better than before, because there would be no Broadcliffe resident that would not want me to talk about the objections that we've had. to site number 12 in Broadclist with over the size of the village will be increased by about a third by the amount of housing that has been allocated to Broadclist. I am really surprised that there were such a few number of objections in this consultation considering over 30 people turned up at the local parish council meeting to discuss this site recently.

03:05:16Does anybody else wish to speak on this proposal Councillor Davey yeah I just wonder if we should suggest if we're reviewing those sites we also need to look at alternatives don't we so that if those sites are taken out or reduced or or something done, that we have some alternatives to consider. Because I wasn't suggesting that we simply remove EXMO20 so Exmouth only has a 5% expansion.

03:05:59I think we need to look again at some of the sites in Exmouth and reconsider whether they perhaps are the least worst option after all. I wanted to talk about the number of objections as a percentage of population as well. You made a good point about that, but the number of objections you have in Wimple in a small village like that could be that everybody feels they are somehow impacted by a single development because of the extra traffic, the pressure on services, or whatever.

03:06:44Not everyone in Exmouth is particularly bothered about EXMO20. Probably a lot of people are not aware of it. It won't actually affect me, although I'll probably get some more traffic coming down Hollam Road, which will make it even more difficult to get across on foot. But my point is that if we are going to review certain sites with a view to removing them from the plan, then we are going to need some alternatives because the point has been made very well by Councillor Hayward that we can't just ignore the government targets and the government are not going to budge on that.

03:07:30And we have so frequently attempted to make the point to them that it was unfair, the amount of housing we were being asked to provide and it has fallen on deaf ears. So I think we would have to have some alternatives up our sleeve. I'm going to come to Mr Freeman to comment on that because I suspect he might have something to say. Well, no, I agree with Councillor Dave, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to bring a report that considered the case for potentially removing any sites without also considering the implications of doing so, both in terms of the housing numbers, what happens if you remove this site in terms of our housing numbers?

03:08:23Do you then need to make alternative provision what are those alternative sites and what's the case for for them overturning your previous decision not to include them and then to include them now um and what are the implications in terms of the process of doing that and also complying with the planning practice guidance in terms of this change in terms of the regulation 19 two-stage approach and complying with the transitional arrangement so there's a lot of different components to that report so I think you're quite right that it can't just be a report that says this is the case for removing or not removing these sites it has to go on and consider the implications of doing so whether you want to include that in the resolution or are happy to just trust that I understand that that's what's needed and will ensure that that's what the report covers I'll leave to the committee thank you mr Freeman I have noted the two hands to my right but somebody who has not spoken yet today has indicated they wish to do so Councillor Blakey

03:09:32Thank you chair um we are obviously in a very uncomfortable position here and we are having to deal with something that none of us want to see happening. I don't believe there's anybody here that wants to see this level of development in East Devon, but we have no choice. If we don't make a plan, if we don't decide what we're going to do, then the decisions will be taken away from us. We all know that. I have a question for Mr Freeman. I'm not sure whether this is possible or not, but the sites that we are about to reconsider, and maybe some others as well, are we able to allocate a priority to them so that we can identify some sites, maybe all of those that we're about to reconsider as being developments of last resort, that when they are put out that we make it clear to developers that these can only be developed towards the end of the plan period and that they can only be developed if at that time there is still

03:10:58A government requirement to deliver and that there is a market for those properties is that something that is feasible and could be included in the plan um I think the short answer is no not really um I mean I think once a site is allocated in a plan you're basically accepting it's appropriate for it to come forward and and and that's what you then expect will happen um and in terms of our um you know we obviously need to map all of this out in terms of our housing trajectories to show that we'll have adequate supply so um you know putting them in and then sort of punting them as a as a maybe for some time towards the tail end of the plan um kind of doesn't help with all of those trajectories of sort of plotting out when houses will come forward and showing that we've got adequate supply coming forward um I have seen circumstances where um well us and others have put in what called sort of a reserve site um but generally they're they're sort of sites that are in excess

03:12:10Of your housing numbers and then it's it's a sort of because a particular site has has an issue that means it may not come forward you sort of put in an alternate that's not good practice I would suggest and I don't think it would be appropriate in this circumstance so essentially a long-winded answer to say no I'm afraid thank you mr Freeman Councillor Jung or fernley okay thank you chair um oh my head's spinning I think like everybody else feeling the choices are so difficult here um one roy collins spoke earlier about higher density developments I've spoken about this previous committees I'm not sure we've ever had anything formally written to us about why we don't go ahead and encourage more or I don't know how you say that these places have to be more dense. I know we want people to live in nice places but the rest of the world seems to manage to have denser places to live which would save some of our land and our beautiful area. So, you know, is that something that can be thought of or can it be explained to

03:13:43Me why we just never do it? Going back to Matt Hall's statement, these developments that are of a decent size, sort of EXMO20, was it 700? From my own experience of living on a new development, these bring all the problems of where are the kids going to go to school, aware of the doctors and we're just making the area that we live in worse by not putting having the services close by um so yeah I'm I'm in turmoil about all of these decisions so how can we build higher and more dense um so the first thing to say is in terms of the the sites for allocation I think we took away an action from a previous meeting about revisiting the densities and the quantum of development each site was accommodating and trying to maximise what we thought they could accommodate.

03:14:48So we have been through that process and we can review that again as part of this exercise before we get to the final version of the plan. So we will try and make sure that we are maximising what we can realistically get on all of the sites that we're allocating. But in terms of a more fundamental shift to higher density development, potentially taller buildings, more apartments, um there are difficulties I think both in terms of reflecting the character of our existing settlements which don't generally have that character um but also um in terms of the market in the area um so my understanding is you know the the market for apartments in East Devon is very limited um fundamentally limited to uh fairly high-end apartments on seafronts and estuary frontages such as the Exmouth docks development which um was raised from me earlier obviously very successful development and and they all sold um but they're quite high-end apartments with fantastic views um wouldn't create that sort of environment in in in a lot of our

03:15:56Inland towns for example and create that kind of market that they managed to create there um and I would suggest and I don't think I'm giving away any clues that those that development did not meet local need at all I don't mean any of those apartments were affordable to local people um a lot of them I suspect are second homes or uh owned by people who who have moved down here from from elsewhere so while I can see that might be achieving objectives in terms of high density development it's not meeting local needs which is another thing I regularly hear the committee asking for housing that's meeting the needs of local people um so it's balancing those issues but fundamentally I I don't think the market would deliver apartments in a lot of the district we are exploring in terms of the second new community about how we can create a sort of environment particularly around the town center that we're looking to create there and potentially neighborhood centers um where we can create a market um for higher density development um

03:16:57Whether that's apartments or you do see some models of really innovative high density housing where they're sort of in in blocks of sort of uh for homes with roof gardens and and things like this so we are looking at things like that but I think those radical solutions are going to be limited to somewhere like a new community where we're creating a housing market of its own and create an environment and the climate where those kind of properties would be attractive to market to deliver or in potentially in the case of new community where we or as a master developer or appointing parties to deliver that kind of housing but the the market that's out there at the moment I don't think would deliver that kind of product in our existing towns and settlements um and so it becomes a pointless exercise in then allocating sites and then saying that's what it needs to be because that's not what will come forward okay thank you um if I could just gently nudge committee back towards the uh proposal that's been put in front of us um I've got uh

03:18:07Again I'm afraid jeff you've been superseded because somebody who hasn't yet said anything has put their hand up uh so council brown you have stolen jeff's thunder please use it wisely couldn't we re-look at the villages or towns who've asked for planning permission and we've refused it I mean there's I mean two villages in my area that come to mind um where we have lost the pills where we've lost the pills for houses and they've been granted um but we'll turn them down because they want sort of 20 properties built there it's only chance of re-looking at them we have already looked again at those Colin Councillor How I'm just getting worried about this conversation and partly this motion which is driving us further and work further away from having a regulation 19 consultation and driving us to more houses on a yearly basis an extra 200 homes per year we are gonna have to find if we are not careful about what we're doing you know that almost certainly would put EXMO20 back in the fray even if we

03:19:20Ruled it out now and did something else it would almost certainly have to come back next time if we have that higher number because there is an almost nowhere in East Devon that is not suitable or correction suitable just just take this so we need to be really careful and mindful we're doing and a lot a lot of the answers a lot of the statutory consultees when the reports come back will include that information we need to make a sensible decision on EXMO20 because that will be the information we need then I'm not entirely sure we're going to get the information now and it worries me a great deal that's not to say I like EXMO20 in any shape or form it shouldn't have been there that's a different matter but nevertheless Councillor Ledger do you need us to stop 30 seconds just so you can okay there we go thank you Wendy a creative solution and mr. Freeman did you want to comment on what has just come up at all or shall I just continue with my list

03:20:25Just continue with the list yes boss Councillor Jung so there could be a

03:20:49Change in density, change in numbers, reducing now not develop the whole area but part of the area. Alternative accesses could be looked at but taking Councillor Howe's issue we have to consider the consequences of what we're doing because what may come forward is the sites that haven't been allocated in the Local Plan and I know developers are keen to promote those as well as so if you don't get a plan out there quickly those sites that we didn't want will be coming forward anyway indeed members does anybody else wish to speak on this resolution go on then roy please can you add honey 18 because it never went through any process before regulation 19 never discussed any sense and the town council never were able to put a view in please can you add that to the list thank you I will pause to see if anybody wants to suggest that amendment.

03:22:25Yeah, I think that the recommendation being made does make that if officers feel that that needs to come back, that it's able to. Okay. I'm not seeing any further speakers, which says to me that members are happy to move to a vote on the proposals that have been put forward, just to make sure that everybody is clear what is being voted on. I believe, and perhaps Councillor's Ledger or Mr. Freeman, not Mr. Freeman, Mr. Hunter, could confirm that the proposal in front of us is the two recommendations as written in the report with extra wording on the end, which Councillor Ledger can reiterate for us, please.

03:23:19Or Mr. Freeman can reiterate it for us. If it helps, so my understanding is the addition is that officers bring a report that addresses the coastal CCMAs, the water cycle study, duty to cooperate, the wind energy areas, and the sites known as EXMO20, Exmo_17, WIM 08, WIM 11, FENI 08, Ottery 20, and LIMP 01,

03:23:48And any further sites that officers feel need to be revisited is everybody clear what they are voting on okay all those in favor of that resolution please that's nine in favor for

03:24:27The benefit of the tape we turn the mics off just so uh members watching folks watching at home could see the hands raised um those abstaining please oh sorry against first please for the benefit of the tape there's uh no hands in the air uh and those abstaining two two abstentions sorry yes Councillor How on my right does exist um I promise I haven't forgotten you mike um okay so that uh proposal then is carried which brings us to the end of agenda item seven uh so we come then to agenda item eight uh a nice quick report for us please that um well thank you chair this this report follows on quite naturally from the previous one in terms of obviously having now considered the revised work program that would take us through to the second regulation 19 consultation the local development scheme sets out that formally within the LDS format and also looks at the dates beyond that in terms of the submission of the plan through to adoption so members will be familiar we've brought local development schemes through a number of times

03:25:44Before this is the formal work program that we have to publish so the report is simply asking members to agree the updated version that reflects the previous report in terms of the work program moving forwards thank you thank you mr Freeman are there any questions no in which case I will move the recommendations as they are shown in the report from the chair does anybody wish to comment on that no in which case then all those in favor please that's carried unanimously agenda item nine mr Freeman um thank you chair so um this is the urgent item uh which is uh the minutes of an additional meeting of the community infrastructure levy working party which was held over teams on the 3rd of July to consider revised projects and seal bid from Exmouth Rugby Club some members may recall at your previous meeting of this committee you considered the seal bids and one of which was for the Exmouth Rugby Club for a new changing facility to accommodate changing requirements at the club and I think particularly the need for additional women's changing

03:27:02Facilities um what's subsequently come to light since you agreed to support that um bid with an award of hundred thousand pounds um is the rugby club have come back and said that actually they're now looking to do something slightly different um and uh renovate um an existing building to provide the additional facilities rather than build a new facility um and so the working party was reconvened to consider that bid that changed bid as it were and you have the minutes of that discussion I think the primary issue was whether or not they should still be awarded the full hundred thousand pounds given that the overall cost of the project is now reduced so that now makes up a larger proportion of the overall spend on the project or whether or not it should be reduced. There was also, as I understand, a discussion about VAT on the project and whether that could be reclaimed. So the recommendation to the Strategic Planning Committee was that £100,000 be awarded in principle to Exxonfrogby Club, with this sum to be reduced to £67,000

03:28:07If it can be evidenced that the VAT on the project can be reclaimed by the club, which is something we need to investigate further. But I think the recommendation covers both eventualities so we would be clear as officers how to proceed if members are happy with with that so ask members to consider that recommendation from the seal member working party thank you thank you mr Freeman any questions on this paper please silence will fall very good Councillor Brian bailey I'd like to recommend approval for this general okay thank you does anybody wish to second that I see about seven different hands but I saw Paul as first so what what's actually the recommendation here is it just to accept the minutes of the still working group and recommend that's a good point yeah I mean I think we've only got the minutes here but it actually needs the resolution of Strategic Planning Committee to agree the award of the funds so not just to agree the minutes to agree the recommendation of the seal member working party to award a hundred thousand pounds to the project

03:29:20The revised project at x-mail rugby club uh with this sum to be reduced to 67 000 if it can be evidence that the vat on the project can be reclaimed for the club okay so Councillor Bailey you're happy to propose the recommendation as it's reflected in those minutes yes I am chair thank you thank you Councillor Bailey and happy to second that Councillor Fernley um is that what you need for the purpose of understanding what we're voting on, colleagues?

03:29:45Everybody happy? Yep. Okay, in which case then, all those... Does anybody want to speak on that proposal? I should check myself. Okay, in which case then, all those in favour, please. That is carried unanimously. Did you put your hand up, Kevin? You didn't. Okay, those against and those abstaining, one. Okay, thank you very much. members. See you next time.