Strategic Planning Committee, 2 September 2025

00:03:32Councillors, can I just ask anybody who needs any advice on declarations of interest to check with Damien now, please, rather than during the meeting?

00:07:26Okay. Good morning, everybody. We'll get started. First of all, 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. Please also make sure all phones are either muted or switched off.

00:07:51To start the meeting proper then, good morning everybody and welcome to the Strategic Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday 2nd September 2025. I'm your Chair, Councillor Todd Olive. To my right is Vice Chair, Councillor Mike Howe. supporting officers present this morning are Ed Freeman assistant director planning strategy and development management um matt whose last name and title escaped me because it's not on my script matt dickens planning policy manager um damian hunter planning solicitor and wendy harris democratic services officer can I remind everyone present please that this meeting is recorded for publication on the council's website so please can members and officers making a contribution to the meeting use a microphone or your comments will not be recorded. We're now going to start the meeting by doing a roll call of committee members and declarations of interest and before we go round members individually I will declare at the outset on behalf of all members lobbying in respect of sites EXMO20, all of the Honiton sites and Wimple 08 which I think covers all the ones that we've had universal lobbying on but members please do declare if you've had anything

00:09:04Individually in addition to that. Wendy. Thank you Chair. Do you have any other declarations? I do. I need to declare lobbying in respect of Wimple 11 and I also need to declare on that site an effects and prejudicial non-registral interest so I will leave the meeting when it comes to discussing wimple 11 and my vice chair will pick up that's wimple 11 thank you Councillor Howe vice chair nothing for me thank you Councillor Brian bailey present wendy I've been lobbied on all things Exmouth including 20 thank you Councillor Jess bailey um present and um I've declared an effects NRI as a Devon County Councillor And I've also been lobbied on multiple sites. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Blakey. Present and no declarations. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Colin Brown. Present Wendy and only the ones that have been declared. Thank you. Councillor Davey. Present and apart from the ones that have already been declared I'm also an Exmouth Town Councillor Which I think there's an effect in our role. Thank you. Councillor Fernley. Hello, present and

00:10:46I need to declare an effect from the judicial NRI on the Gypsy and Traveller site and I've received lobbying on virtually everything. Sorry, I need to, can you hear me now? I have an effects and prejudicial NRI on the Gypsy and Traveller site and have been lobbied on virtually all the other sites. Councillor Hayward. Like most members, I've been lobbied by email and by post on items relating to Agenda Item 8 also like my effects NRI as an employee of Axminster Town Council relating to Agenda Item 8 which has implications for Axminster and also on Agenda Item 8 and Effects NRI as the Devon County Councillor For Axminster. Thank you.

00:12:07This out any better? Can you turn the volume up, Wendy? I've turned it up. Is that any better at all? We might have to... I must admit, it's very quiet today. I couldn't hear half of you speaking. I think, can you hear me now through this microphone? Yes. Yeah, I think if members can perhaps speak up as well when they're speaking, I know I've got a particularly loud voice, as my family constantly tell me, but if you can just speak up clearly, it would be helpful.

00:12:38Thank you. And perhaps move them closer, I think, as well. Councillor Ingham. Present. No additional declarations. No Councillor Ledger. Councillor Levine. Present. And I can't remember what I haven't been lobbied about.

00:13:05Thank you. And finally, Councillor Parr. Yes, I'm here. and nothing other than what was declared by the chairman.

00:13:17Thank you. Non-committee members, do we have any declarations? No? Lovely. Back to you, chair. Okay, thank you, Wendy. That brings us then to agenda item one, minutes of the previous meeting held on the 8th of July 2025. Are there any comments or questions on those minutes? No? Okay, thank you, members. in which case then I'll move as chair that those minutes are a true and accurate record. Members, please raise your hand if you're in support.

00:13:53That's carried. Thank you, members. Agenda item two. Apologies, Wendy. I have councillors Haggerty, Jung and non-committee member Councillor Ian Barlow. Are there any others? Yes, non-committee member Councillor Aurora Bailey. Okay, thank you. Agenda item three declarations of interest we have already done now which brings us then to agenda item four and we start today with just generic public speaking as we'll take public speaking on the specific sites at the time that we come to those settlements in a short while so I have only the one public speaker who wants to speak generally and that's Councillor Roy Collins please. Thank you, Chair. Now, you may recall 12 months ago at your meetings, I spoke about

00:15:06The world situation and food. Well, nothing's changed. In fact, it's got a lot worse. In America, 536,000 farms have packed up and finished. That's 165 million acres which will no longer be producing food. We have extreme weather conditions. We have monsoons in Asia. Houses have been washed away. Crops are gone. In this country, we've gone through a terrible drought. Thankfully, we have a small amount of rain now. But it means crops in the fields are only yielding half of what they should do. Cauliflowers, broccoli, if you go in the shops, they're only half the size of normal. We are heading for a Gustavusry. We're going to be out of food before very much longer, I feel. And here we are at East Devon Council, taking good quality agricultural land away, which will no longer be able to produce food if you build houses on it. How stupid you are to put plans like that forward, not protecting. In this country, in the last 12 months, 6,365 farming businesses or related businesses have finished, mainly because of government policies. Farmers just can't take any more. They're giving

00:17:05Up. There's a herd of 1,600 milkers in Cornwall, which they had a sale last week, 250 cows. They keep on having sales, putting there every month to disperse of them, all because of farm inheritance tax. They got to get rid of it all before next April. It's terrible what is happening. Farmers have been treated badly all over the world. In Australia, the Australian government has been lobbied heavily to try and stop farmers from using dogs to get their flocks of sheep and cattle together, herds of cattle. They're not going to be allowed to use dogs. How ridiculous. In this country, we've got a lot of people. You had a lady here in this hall. We had a lady in this hall trying to stop East Devon Council from eating meat, putting milk in your tea. How ridiculous.

00:18:14Could you finish up please, Councillor Collins? We have grassland in this country and that is good at efficient retaining water and acts as a sponge to stop flooding. You build on that grassland, you've lost that ability to stop flooding. Every acre of growing crops removes four times more carbon, harmful greenhouse gases than your car produces. And there's one million, there's nearly one million empty houses in this country.

00:18:51Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Collins. That's your time. Thank you. I have no other general public speakers, so we'll move on to agenda item five. Matters of urgency, there are none. Agenda item six, confidential or exempt items, again, there are none. Which brings us then to agenda item seven on the Newton-Popperford settlement boundary. And we'll go over first of all to Mr Freeman to present his report.

00:19:18Thank you chair and good morning members. So this first item relates to Newton-Popperford settlement boundary. Members will recall that this matter was discussed previously at meetings and the history of that is set out in the report so I won't go through that in full detail but this report has come about from a motion that went to council on the 16th of July where it was resolved that the committee be asked to revisit this issue.

00:19:44And basically there are two options as we see it in front of the committee. One is to revise the boundary to that previously recommended by officers, which is in Appendix 1 within the agenda, or to retain the boundary as previously agreed by the committee, which is the plan in your agenda Appendix 2.

00:20:05Now members will recall the key issue here and with development coming forward in Newton Popperford has been the sort of pinch point by the mini roundabout and the old toll house at the western end of the village and how that restricts access for residents in terms of walking and cycling into the services and facilities available on the high street at the heart of the village, particularly those residents living in that western part of the settlement.

00:20:34Officers as a result of that issue recommended a settlement boundary which excluded most of the development of that western part of the village other than the allocated sites at neutro 5 and neutro 4 which members will recall a requirement of those allocations is that they deliver a enhanced footpath route that bypasses that pinch point on the a3052 by the old toll house and so by the time those sites come forward there will be access through and therefore those sites can acceptably be included within a settlement boundary. When it was previously discussed by the committee members decided to include some of the developments in that western part of the village not the area shown sort of as borough on on the map at appendix one but the area adjacent to the Exmouth Road heading south out of away from that mini roundabout was included within the settlement boundary at that time and has caused some concern I believe from the residents and from the ward member Councillor Burhop which has led to this issue being revisited today. So officers recommendation is that members agreed to amend the boundary to

00:21:48So that's shown at Appendix 1 as previously recommended in previous reports to the committee.

00:21:54Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you, Mr. Freeman. Before I come to the ward member, Councillor Burhop, who's going to join us virtually this morning, just to remind members briefly, you had a statement from Councillor Tribble, the chair of Newton-Poperford Parish Council, which was emailed around to you all yesterday morning. Wendy, could we go to HDMI 2, please? um chris can you hear us excellent we can hear you but you are very very quiet wendy is there anything we can do to turn the volume up please try again chris that's much better thank you very much okay chris the floor is yours okay thank you Councillor Boric um I'm going to come to the rest

00:24:30Of the uh non-committee members first uh councillors faithful collins hookway anything to say on this paper no okay coming inside committee then any questions comments from members please Councillor Jess bailey thank you um I should extend my nri to this agenda item as well as Devon County Council of the newton popperford um but I totally support uh Councillor Burrop um and uh the western um extent of uh newton popperford should um definitely be um excluded and so I think that I support well I don't think I do support the recommendation that it goes back to the one that's previously put forward by officers thank you thank you Councillor Bailey is that proposal yes okay thank you Councillor Levine are you seconding do you wish to say anything no okay does anybody else want to comment on this item I see no hands so I'll take us straight to a vote then um the uh proposal in front of you members is as set out in officer's report to revert to the originally recommended settlement boundary at newton poppleford all those

00:25:48In favor please those against and those abstaining one so that is clearly carried thank you members thank you for joining us Councillor Burrick um enjoy the rest of your day unless you're staying with us. Wendy, can we go back to the main screen, please? Thank you. Okay, that brings us then to agenda item eight. While Mr. Freeman changes the cable over, the East Devon Local Plan consultation feedback timetable and future work plan from page 21 in the agenda PAC members and with that he says delaying. Over to Mr. Freeman. Councillor Brown. Can I ask a question before we go into this one? Can you ask a question? Well you did just ask a question Colin so what is your question? We've got the Local Plan and we've got the emerging Local Plan.

00:27:06When things go to committee for planning, some items on the emerging Local Plan are put up for approval, and we're told that can take limited weights. Will the inspector, when he comes down to examine our new Local Plan, say those items that are in the Local Plan have been approved under the old Local Plan? therefore you've got to find more properties because they've already been approved do you want to just deal with that question now mr Freeman it's slightly out of order but um I mean the the quick answer is no because the plan is about what development is going to come forward during the 15 year lifespan of the plan so if they're granted consent already then they'll still come forward they'll still count towards the housing numbers in this plan period um indeed there's things that are within our housing calculations that are already consented that will come forward during that time period so it's not that they won't count if they're already granted they will what what we're doing in terms of our recommendations is having regard to our

00:28:16Five-year housing and supply position and the fact that we need to boost our housing and supply position and give more weight to delivery of housing sites to address that position by potentially where acceptable proposals are coming through as planning applications that are sites to be allocated in the new plan are potentially bringing them forward so effectively those sites come forward sooner to bolster the current position but they're still helping in terms of the the position we need to have during this planned period in meeting housing needs okay thank you mr Freeman we'll move on to the substantive report column if you have further clarifications maybe we can pick up afterwards um I've let you get away with one there remember that Mr Freeman please thank you chair so this is this report follows on from discussion at Strategic Planning Committee on the 8th of July where members received a feedback report on the first regulation 19 consultation and requested a report that considered the number of sites which had received a higher than average number of objections as well as reports on the

00:29:22Water cycle study coastal change management areas duty to cooperate wind energy areas which are later on on the agenda. I should just highlight that of the list of sites that members asked to receive it was subsequently confirmed that LIMP01 was included in error so that site is not referenced further in this report but the other sites and a couple of other sites that officers feel need reconsideration are also addressed in this report. I should say in terms of that we have also included uh the site honey 18 uh which wasn't in members list but did uh have a higher than average number of objections uh as it subsequently came to light that a representation that we had summarized in the feedback report was actually a petition and it had 80 over 80 signatures to it uh so apologies uh to uh that whoever submitted the uh petition I I think is is here and those that that wasn't picked up previously so that was just recorded as a letter in the feedback report but did actually have over 80 signatures to it and so we've added

00:30:27That to to this report so that you do have commentary on on that that site as well given the level of representations received and the criteria that was previously set by members for for reports coming back to this meeting. Just to set the scene a bit in terms of the opening part of the report before we get into the individual sites themselves, I just want to draw members' attention again to this amendment to the National Planning Practice Guidance in relation to two-phase Regulation 19 consultations.

00:31:06Members may recall this from the previous report that came to your July meeting but it's very pertinent to what you're discussing today in this issue about the extent to which changes can be made between a first regulation 19 consultation and a second stage consultation and you'll see that this guidance makes it clear that a plan is to be taken as having reached regulation 19 on the date the subsequent round of consultation commenced in limited circumstances and these could include instances such as when the content of an emerging plan has changed significantly from the one presented at the initial regulation 19 stage and this comes back to the transitional arrangements that members will recall were put in place when we moved from the previous version of the national planning policy framework to the new version and we're trying to move this plan forward under the transitional arrangements which allow us to present a plan that only meets 80 percent of the currently identified housing need in the district um and so it's quite significant that we remain within those transitional arrangements uh the implications of not doing so are set out

00:32:16Within the report particularly paragraph 2.7 which notes uh points out that over the the period of the plan we potentially need to find over an additional 5 000 new homes if we don't remain within those transitional arrangements, which would be very challenging, I would suggest, particularly given the challenges members will know we've all had over the last however many meetings in terms of finding suitable sites to allocate to meet the existing identified need at just over 950 homes per year. So I'd ask members to bear this in mind, particularly the highlighted sentence that we cannot well we can make significant changes to the plan but it has significant implications in terms of housing numbers and progression of this plan it would basically send us back to the drawing board in terms of site allocations and the need to allocate significantly more sites than we currently have in terms of the housing numbers though it's worth saying that, as I think members will be aware, the standard method that we calculate housing need based on is an evolving thing. One of the main things that changes each year is

00:33:31The affordability ratio, which is a factor that in our case factors up our housing need because the ratio between earnings and house prices is unfortunately quite high. It has previously been over 10 times that the house prices are compared to average salaries but in the last year that's actually come down which has actually reduced our housing requirement figure so if we apply that it equates to a fall of just over 25 dwellings per year which when multiplied out over 22 years of the potential plan period equates to a fall of 563 homes so that's the good news um I wouldn't want members to think that that gives us lots of breathing room though um because there are other issues to be aware of members will be aware that we we built in some headroom in terms of the housing allocations we made but we didn't quite reach the headroom that we were were trying to achieve uh so this potentially gives us some additional headroom the other factor is in terms of the plan period which I've already mentioned we are required to

00:34:41Have a minimum of a 15-year planned period at the point of adoption, and obviously the longer planned production takes and the longer examination takes, the greater the risk becomes that we don't have 15 years at the point of adoption. So I think it's important that we perhaps bank that 563 on the basis of if we get to the point of examination of adoption and we don't have 15 years between that and the stated aspirations for future growth at the second new community we can construct quite a strong argument that we actually have an additional year's housing supply within the plan so that even if we don't have a 15-year plan period we have planned for sufficient homes to meet a 16-year so therefore that would help us I think to defend against arguments over the time period of the plan so I'd ask members to obviously bear in mind that good news in terms of the housing figures but I don't think it massively affects the conversation we need to have today in terms of sites so just turning to um the issues in terms of particular sites um so members

00:35:55Will obviously seen the feedback report that I presented to the previous meeting we've taken through this report some of that that feedback particularly the issues of greatest concern I think in terms of the feedback we've received and those from statutory consultees and tried to address the particular sites uh that the members listed and the additional sites I previously mentioned there are some recurring themes around landscape considerations that we've uh put in some summary text at paragraphs 4.3 to 4.5 in the report in terms of our requirements under the leveling up Regeneration Act in particular with regards to protected landscapes and furthering the purposes of the national landscapes and our requirements there and also considerations in terms of heritage considerations there's a number of sites where you'll see there are objections from Historic England, Devon County Council about issues around the setting and impact on listed buildings scheduled ancient monuments and archaeological remains which is a theme that runs through a number of these sites there are also issues around mineral resource protection that Devon County Council have raised particularly in relation to site EXMO20 which we'll come on to in

00:37:09A moment so those are particular themes running through if you're happy chair I'll move on to first site um which comes through uh which takes us into Exmouth I see a a couple of hands at that point and I had thought it yeah just for a second please I thought I might clarify how we're going to take uh this report as well um so I saw Councillor Ingham's hand first and then Councillor Levine's Councillor Ingham questions sure that's all right on what ed's just said um I got a view of an email chain from a constituent within my ward I think to Ed regarding LIMPO1 which you mentioned which is withdrawn. Forgive me, I wasn't in attendance that's why I wanted to check. And there was an inference that another site was supposed to I think it was Councillor Ledger was referring to another site not limpo one I hear that that's removed now how how sure are you that he wasn't doing that because it was limpo seven that was referred to by the constituent

00:38:33Or he implied that uh council and ledger was putting that one forward and do you remember the email chain and it seemed confusing to me that you hadn't dealt with the inference from my constituent although you had taken limpo one out of the consideration through you chair my recollection is that limpo one had just been included in error and that was clarified with counts the ledger I don't think it was that any other site at limston was intended to be included I don't think any of the Lipson sites had a higher than average, which I think was the methodology Council ledger was using.

00:39:15I don't think any of them had a higher than average number of objections lodged against them, and so they didn't fall within his criteria for this report. One more question, and that's, you've explained to us, you know, the fragility of being in a positive position. But when we went through the whole 19 process, we considered a plethora of potential allocations. We hit the number that was the desired number to be able to deliver to the emerging Local Plan.

00:39:55It was only then that you looked at, I think there was four really large sites that could deliver, say, up to 2,000 houses. What was the logic in looking at them after we'd already gone through the process, rather than looking at them at the beginning of the process, or indeed identifying potentially a bigger second new town where the infrastructure could almost be guaranteed compared to the fragility of delivering sustainable developments on our major settlements without the money for infrastructure?

00:40:41I mean, I think however we went through the sites, there were always going to be some sites that we ended up looking at last um and could we could we let mr Freeman answer please Councillor In fairness so I mean I think the logic was that when we established the the strategy in the plan which was was key at the outset of plan production was uh that there would be a second new community and it was agreed uh members had the three options in front of them in terms of those sites and and we went through that that process that determine that that strategy I think our feeling as officers was that other smaller new communities shall we say in that that same area were contrary to that agreed strategy so therefore they fell logically to be considered last after sites that complied with the strategy that we'd set out uh earlier in the plan making process I I think the other issue with those sites and I think it's particularly the the cliff villages proposal I think was was was one that um was was discussed

00:41:43At that meeting was that we were really in a situation where we're delivering two new towns in close proximity to each other um and issues in terms of what the market can sustain in terms and deliver in terms of that type of housing um and so I question whether or not trying to deliver effectively a third new community in that same area is actually going to boost their housing supply position that greatly because the market can only I suspect sustain so many homes coming forward in that kind of environment that kind of product um so I'm not convinced that if we'd included say 2 000 homes at the cliffs villages proposal we'd actually have seen 2 000 more homes delivered in the planned period um so I I think it's um well I can see in some respects it's it's an attractive option in terms of taking pressure away from the existing settlements I don't think it would necessarily have solved our problem anyway um which is another reason why I think it was logical to to look at that that later in the process I just minded that some people may

00:42:51Feel that was almost predetermined because we didn't debate it we didn't consider it we had made a decision then we dismissed something uh after it was no longer required as you know part of achieving a target I think that was wrong thank you the record reflects your view Councillor Has is your right Councillor Levine thank you chair with apologies if I'm making my metaphors but I wonder if you and mr Freeman could throw me a lifeline because it seems to me that I'm facing a Hobson choice, with a sword of Damocles hanging over my head.

00:43:31If we don't do this, if we don't comply with what we're supposed to do, we're going to have to find another 5,000 homes. So it seemed to be a self-defeating exercise. Supposing I were minded to make the good people who turned up today happy, forget about one of the sites will find alternate sites, which means we're going to make other people unhappy who are going to come and get come to us. Will that wreck or scatter our plan? Does it mean that the inspector or whoever it is decides that this is a substantial change in our plan and get us back to the 100% instead of the 80% figure? So I'm struggling here to decide what changes can I make in order to avoid having to go to rewrite a substantial change in our Local Plan. Thank you. Mr. Freeman, can you read the inspector's mind for us, please?

00:44:43I wish I could chair um I I mean what I would say is I'm not saying you can't make any changes um what I'm saying is we need to be very mindful of not making such significant changes that we fall out of the transitional arrangements and inspector would take the view that the Reg 19 consultation on this plan started whenever our second regulation 19 consultation starts currently planned for for october um because of those consequences um the you know the hangman's noose hanging over your head or however you want to put it um I think as I flagged up in the report um some changes would be more significant than others I'm particularly concerned about changes in Exmouth because as our biggest town arguably it should be taking the greatest amount of growth in terms of the existing settlements excepting we've got a second new town coming forward which is obviously and the west end is taking the greatest amount of growth behind that x mouth is is the biggest settlement the most sustainable location uh to accommodate growth and um as I

00:45:56Said at paragraph 5.6 if you were to for example take out EXMO20 and I know we're going to come on to individual sites that equates to 48 percent of the total number of homes allocated in that settlement so if if you take that out it's fundamentally changing the strategy in this plan in terms of the scales of growth we're putting in different locations so I struggle to argue that that's not a significant change to the plan however um you'll see elsewhere in the agenda I'm actually recommending some changes to sites in in Honiton um for for good reason I think in terms of some smaller sites than that but we're not changing the strategy because the numbers are made up within Honiton within exmo I struggled to see how you would make up 700 homes on any other sites in fact if you included all the other rejected sites in exmo in place of EXMO20 you wouldn't make up 700 so that's the kind of scale I think in terms of changes where I think we really

00:46:57Have a problem I'm not saying you can't do it I'm just advising you of the consequences potentially of doing it and then there are other lesser changes where the impact is less we can mitigate that through through changes elsewhere without in my view making a significant change an inspector would say the paragraph I had up earlier in terms of the planning practice guidance would apply in in terms of your comments about making people happy I think I think we have to accept that there are objections to every site in this plan to some degree and people are quite understandably going to raise concerns and objections to any sites you allocate I think the role of this committee and in advising this committee is to do what's best for the district as a whole and we all know we haven't got a choice in terms of meeting the housing requirement figures set by government all we can do is meet them in the best way we can on the least harmful sites in the most sustainable locations we can find um and and that's really all I can can advise

00:48:06Because as you say whatever you do someone's going to be upset thank you thank you mr Freeman I'm quite keen that we move into um the substance of the rest of the report Councillor Bailey is it really quick. Thank you very much indeed. The words have been mentioned by Mr. Freeman, sustainability. When we're discussing EXMO20, there's no way on God's earth that's sustainable. Could we come to that when we talk about EXMO20, Brian, if that's okay?

00:48:39Don't forget, Chair. I won't forget. I'm sure you wouldn't let me forget anyway, Brian. Okay, so just before Mr. Freeman comes on to the presentation of the sites at Exmouth then, We're going to take each settlement that's got a section in this report. Together, we will question, discuss, debate, come to a resolution on the sites in that section, and then move on to the next settlement. We're just doing that for good order so that we're not here in a nebulous and endless discussion about everything at the same time, which would be significantly harder to manage and make any conclusions from.

00:49:19So that's how we're going to do it today. And with that said, then, we'll come to the presentation on the Exmouth sites, please. Mr Freeman? Yes, all the Exmouth sites together, please. So, turning to Exmouth then. So, the first Exmouth site is Exmo_47, land west of Hullam Road. The main issues with this site is really issues in terms of impacts on heritage assets, which came through the consultation feedback quite strongly from historic England in terms of them considering the allocation to be unsound because they consider development, in their opinion, would result in harm to the significance of three Grade 1 listed buildings and the Grade 2 registered park and garden.

00:50:04Members who are familiar with this area know that there's the Grade 1 Pointing View Chapel, the Grade 1 Mance that goes with that, and the Grade 1 Alaronde National Trust property not far along Summer Lane to the west of this site sort of northwest of this site so we have looked at this issue in further detail in terms of the impacts our own conservation officers say that whilst visual impacts may be acceptable they're concerned about noise loss of tranquility and lighting and the harm that may cause to the built heritage in that location so yeah they're saying it could lead to unacceptable levels of harm unless the landscaping scheme can reduce the harm to an acceptable level so there is a matter of detail here in terms of mitigation but there is going to be an impact on the setting particularly of the registered park and garden given the the separation distance to the list of buildings themselves so our conclusion is that potential adverse heritage impacts that need to be considered in the overall planning balance um other factors obviously the suitability of this site given its

00:51:17Location uh and its strategic role within uh eximath um we think there's some drafting changes we could make to the policy to highlight the heritage concerns and considerations um but we think subject to those that the allocation can be adequately defended and is acceptable so the recommendation is to retain this allocation but with some policy refinement to follow a more fully emphasized the heritage protection matters if I move on to EXMO20 then so quite a number of issues members will recall we had over 1100 objections to this site and I think our further assessment is of a scale that reflects that level of opposition so the main issues raised during the consultation were harm to the Pebblebed Heaths loss of biodiversity ancient woodland and wildlife corridors adverse impact on the setting of St John in the Wilderness church and other heritage assets loss of tranquility dark skies and rural character flood risk due to the clay soils and upstream location relative to withycombrook poor access from B3179 and concerns about traffic and safety and sustainability

00:52:32The unsustainable location due to distance from services and facilities concerns about the process in which the site had gone through suggestions it had not been properly consulted on at Regulation 18 stage the only support I think came from the planning consultant and developer of the site so just taking some of those main points in more detail the report looks at the landscape considerations the site is a large site it encompasses an area of over 84 hectares and preliminary proposals that have come forward to us suggest that less than half of that site area would actually be developed in acknowledgement of its its constraints fundamentally so we've obviously previously discussed the 400 meter development buffer that's required to be provided from the boundaries of the site to the Pebblebed Heaths and this coincides with some of the higher more open parts of the site which would be more sensitive in landscape terms anyway so the fact that those areas wouldn't be developed helps to to minimize uh the landscape impacts um can I finish please can can mr Freeman finish his presentation please thank you

00:53:53Um as has previously been discussed the site is somewhat apart from the built-up area of Exmouth and this causes some issues in terms of vehicle access to the site particularly given uh the constraints of St John's Road which is narrow tree lined and lacks width in terms of the footways the only alternative and this was one of members main officers main concerns with this site originally was the need to create an access off the B3179 to the northeastern corner of the site and for traffic to then potentially have to drive quite a securitous route into the town from there and obviously there are consequential impacts in terms of the character the B3179 and the need to run a road through that 400 meter exclusion zone from the Pebblebed Heath that I mentioned earlier which is obviously quite a significant cost on the development as well there is however access to services and facilities through on St John's road and the opportunity to create good uh vehicular and cycling routes through there I think there's some limited

00:55:03Vehicle access potential as well and obviously access through to public transport facilities through there so um there is an argument that uh that approach potentially encourages sustainable travel by making those more convenient because the more direct route to those uh facilities through walking and cycling or through to public transport links rather than driving into the town so that may act as a deterrent to deter people from driving from the site.

00:55:33It's also worth noting, obviously, the residential development would be more to the south because of the 400-metre zone so more naturally they could walk or cycle through that area. But there's no getting away from the fact that there are some landscape concerns with this site and those need to be weighed in the balance. in terms of mineral considerations I mentioned Devon County Council have concerns about minerals constraints beneath this site we need to ensure that those minerals are safeguarded to ensure that development does not sterilize or constrain future mineral extraction in this area there is a zone again which which has to be respected in terms of where minerals could be extracted from and it largely aligns, well I think it's slightly larger than the 400 metre exclusion zone from the Pebble Baird Heaths, hopefully you can see a purple dotted line on there, that's looking south towards Exmouth with the Pebble Baird Heaths in the foreground in effect so that line roughly represents the 400 meter zone in terms of the Pebblebed Heaths as I say it's a similar line for the minerals extraction as well development could take place

00:56:57In that area but only if a mineral resource assessment shows that it's not going to limit the extraction of the potential economic value of that mineral resource but we understand Devon County Council officers are happy with the road running through that area so in terms of what's actually proposed here it's not a massive constraint in terms of heritage considerations this is obviously a more significant concern and we've done a lot of detailed work in terms of considering the impact on the heritage assets particularly St John in the Wilderness Church which is a Grade II star-listed building that lies sort of at the heart of the site.

00:57:40There's quite a detailed assessment of this report in the report, so I won't go through this in detail, but you can see on the plan that we've identified various areas in terms of their visual connectivity to the heritage asset. And then we've worked through in terms of the low and medium areas in terms of what happens if there's no development on the most sensitive areas of the site in terms of the impact on the heritage assets only low density development on the medium areas and then the majority of development is focused on the less sensitive parts of the site and that analysis demonstrates that the site can accommodate the level of growth allocated as things stand within the the plan and obviously respect those more sensitive parts of the site um so yeah so that that assessment identifies that um even even with uh the employment land and community uses that are proposed which make up a further two hectares of sites uh that the site can accommodate at least 700 homes as per the the current allocation

00:58:48Um we have proposed in the reports and redrafting of the allocation policy that picks up on some of these issues particularly around the need for detailed heritage assessment work this mineral safeguarding area and any development coming forward within the area needing to be subject to robust mineral resource assessment and the provision of an access road and associated parallel running footway and path cycleways that link built development at the site and built development to the B3179 so just giving us clarity about those access routes and arrangements but subject to those changes we believe that EXMO20 should be retained as an allocation for 700 dwellings in the plan so moving on to Exmo_17 lands the south of Littleham Exmouth so this was another site that raised quite a high level of concern particularly in relation to it being within the designated national landscape potential harms the setting of St Margaret and St Andrew's Church and surrounding historic landscape both of those points being raised by historic England and concerns about traffic access and pressures on local infrastructure

00:59:59And services were particularly the areas of concern raised here again it's quite a large site just over 27 hectares of which over 13 hectares would remain undeveloped including a provision of 8.6 hectares of SANG one hectares of sustainable drainage areas 2.8 hectares of other natural semi-natural green space there's also a large open space creating a minimum of 250 meter buffer to be provided between the site and little and church to reduce adverse impacts on its setting so this is worked through discussion with the site promoters we've had in terms of potential master planning and laying out of this site to address some of the concerns that have been raised so the point being that you know this isn't going to be a density developed site across its whole area the more sensitive areas of the site would be left as open space and the less sensitive areas would be accommodating the greatest levels of development employment land is shown within the intended master plan on higher ground at the northern end of the site but would

01:01:10Be read against the backdrop of liverton business park opposite so there's opportunities here to undertake a range of landscape and biodiversity enhancements which can help to accommodate the development within the wider landscape there's also other benefits to be weighed in the balance in terms of its relationship with the national cycle route too which passes through the middle of the site and provides good travel links into little and then Exmouth town centre from there as well as into but they sort it into the east um so we think uh when balancing these issues well obviously it's unfortunate the site is in the national landscape it's not one of the more it's being on the edge of the national landscape helps in terms of you can see the built form that abuts the site to the west and to the north um we think there's the site in terms of how it can potentially come forward, can be accommodated within the landscape and minimise that impact.

01:02:08So there's no getting away from the fact it is in the national landscape, and that needs to be weighed in the balance. But we do feel overall that the public benefits of the development, if the landscaping and ecology enhancements are provided, would outweigh the harm, such that our recommendation is to retain Exmo_17 as an allocation for 410 dwellings in the plan. So turning to Exmo_08 and Exmo_16, these are two sites we've combined at Littleham Fields in Exmo.

01:02:41Again, the main issues raised here relate to the harm to the setting of the Grade 2 listed green farmhouse and the Mayer Valley landscape. The sensitivity of the site in terms of wildlife and biodiversity, concerns about local infrastructure, impact on roads, schools, sewage and water infrastructure, potential flooding issues. and and access and the suitability of that in terms of congestion and traffic in the area so as a historic england raised some concerns about the impact on uh heritage assets particularly the grade two listed green farm which is immediately to the southwest of the sites this farm and its immediate garden areas an attractive and important heritage asset it does not however sit within a clear and obvious countryside and undeveloped setting rather its location is quite urban fringe um so the point being it doesn't sit in isolation of development so therefore the additional impact of additional development is is reduced in consequence um but admittedly additional development in the area obviously does have an impact um we'd also highlight the grade one listed st margaret and st andrews church lies relatively

01:03:57Close though it's around 140 meters away to the northeast of the site. Obviously the impact in terms of visual connection varies at times of year varying depending on whether there's leaves on trees in the summer and when there's not in the winter but the heritage considerations and concerns related to the site and the comparative negatives to development need to be seen in the context of need to accommodate development and wider positives around the site despite the objections that we've received there are benefits in terms of say the site being within the largest settlement in a relatively sustainable location and difficulties of accommodating development elsewhere where it would be more sensitive potentially in terms of other aspects so our overall recommendation here is to retain Exmo_08 and Exmo_16 as allocations in the plan totalling 45 dwellings finally in terms of Exmo is Exmo_18 this is a site next to Liverton Business Park and is an employment allocation as they stand in the plan the site is not located in the national landscape but the southern part of the site is adjacent to it

01:05:14And obviously on the other side of Salterton Road it's considered that the allocation is sound subject to additions to the plan policy to mitigate landscape impacts are set out in in the report that's before you the effect of this is when we've given further consideration to its impact on setting the national landscape we don't feel so much of the site is developable as we'd originally shown within the plan so we had had this down as 2.7 hectares and we think in effect it's around 1.8 hectares that's developable in terms of mitigating those impacts in terms of the landscape so there's some amended text that's shown at paragraph 7.63 in terms of this allocation we don't consider that loss of employment place employment space to be significant the plan currently allocates more than the economic development needs assessment indicates that we need to this was about providing choice to the market and addressing some latent demand that we believe exists in terms of employment spaces but in the scheme of things the loss of 0.9 of a

01:06:22Hectare of employment land we don't consider to be material. So the recommendation is that Exmo_18 is retained within the plan as an employment allocation but subject to that amended wording and it's reduced site area. Chair I think that's it for Exmo sites so I'll leave the committee to ask any questions or debate notes. Thank you Mr Freeman we're going to come to public speaking before we come to questions etc in committee as we do have a number of members of the public registered to speak. So first I'm going to come to outright members of the public and then we'll come to Councillor Hookway after that. So first on my list here [member of the public], your three minutes.

01:07:17The report, we've emailed this committee a list of over 20 issues with this report and I can assure you there are many more the report highlights the risk if you change anything significantly but it is unclear what's a significant change is if you see paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 and what this committee have already talked about the report is full of contradictions for example paragraph 7.4 to point d on page 24 says that the southern wood access for site EXMO20 will be restricted. An increase from 150 homes to 300 is not recommended but on the map page 18 and the tables on pages 21 and 22 it wants to put over 450 homes in here. How is it that by taking out half of the site as shown on the map that the numbers substantially exceed the proposed 700? On the same map it indicates spine roads running from the north to the south.

01:08:20You need to be aware that there will be no road connecting the north to the south. Because if there is, how are you going to restrict the modest access through Southern Wood? EXMO20 itself, nearly exactly a year ago, officers did not recommend allocating this site or the northern part of it. 550 homes. No issue was mentioned at the time about the appropriate numbers without it. This committee decided to ignore the officers' recommendation and approve this site and create EXMO20 without fully understanding the issues.

01:08:58Since then, this committee has realised they've made a mistake, ultimately resulting in this report. Now, a year on, the officers are recommending keeping the site. So what's changed in this year? The only things that have changed site-wise are that more issues have been identified, not only by us, but by the statutory bodies and other key organisations. Fourteen pages of this report are spent trying to accommodate comments, mainly, if not exclusively, from the statutory bodies, and yet failing to recognise others that we have raised.

01:09:37A huge change to the policies for this site is proposed. You've got to look at page 25 and all the red text. Is this not a significant change? The only reasons for this site being kept in the plan are so that it helps to meet the government numbers and so that you avoid making a change to the plan that officers see as a possible risk, but you don't know.

01:10:01It is evident that the site is not suitable sustainable or viable you know this the officers know this and so will the planning inspectorate you do not be pushed into this decision take the time now thank you for your time thank you mr humphrey mr hamill I really don't know what we're

01:10:51All doing here today you will by now have realized that my colleagues and I are totally opposed to the allocation of the EXMO20, but we're in very good company. 98 people signed the communications you received from us, 1,110 submissions about EXMO20 were made to the consultation. But it gets better than that. At the last meeting, you, Mr. Olive, said you hadn't voted for EXMO20. A year ago, you, Mr. Freeman, didn't think EXMO20 should be considered for allocation. Councillor Brian Bailey said in February he wished he'd never voted for it and many others of you think the same and at the last meeting dan ledger said of EXMO20 this is our mess and we must sort it out and poor old Councillor Ben ingman is even having to defend a code of conduct complaint because of it in addition to all these worthy people there are many expert bodies against it Devon wildlife trust calls it unsuitable East Devon National Landscapes is against adoption. Natural England, object, historic England, unsound, RSPB, unsound. I could go on. The Environment Agency, Devon County Council,

01:12:04Highways and minerals. No one wants EXMO20. In a normal word, you couldn't even give the bloody thing away. So why is it still in the plan? And the answer is numbers, deadlines and fear the so-called review didn't review anything whoever it was that reviewed it and we've been unable to find out who they were did not look at the merits and demerits the fours and against of EXMO20 they told you if you make any significant change what does that mean the consultation date will change that means 300 houses a year that's all six a week so they tell you don't change anything you've heard mr Freeman don't change anything they try to prevent the rejection of EXMO20 by creating the artifice of requiring its replacement to be an Exmouth so don't change anything yes they acknowledge there are environmental historical and mineral disasters in the EXMO20 but don't change anything and above all they all seem to forget that a year ago there was a draft plan probably prepared by the same people that secured the house numbers

01:13:14The timings without exit EXMO20 but you guessed it you're still saying don't change anything so no one wants it it isn't necessary for the plan it's 700 houses out of a plan in excess of 20 000 over 17 years what do you do mr Freeman regularly advises us his team are there only to advise so it's to you councillors you on these tables to make a decision will you follow the numbers the deadlines and the fear advice of the don't change anything department or will you follow your own common sense EXMO20 failed HELAA failed site sifting was rejected at regulation 18 I say to you reject the EXMO20 you still owe me six seconds mr thank you I told you please reject the EXMO20. Tell Mr. Freeman to make the plan work without desecrating the environment, the wildlife and the heritage that EXMO20 contain. He's done it before.

01:14:17Tell him to do it again. By now, oh, you 24 seconds.

01:14:22Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. Whether or not I agree with you, good speech. Councillor Hookway. Thank you, Chair. I'm speaking to the The committee today, Capacity, is a member of Denver County Council for Exmouth and Budleigh Coastal Division. I want to raise with the committee my concerns regarding highways issues for the sites in consideration, particularly starting with Exmo_17. There is a need to significantly improve highway provision, the local road network, and to amend the national cycle routes here to remove local difficulties with the Big Mead Sheltered Housing Facility, which lies astride of a cycle route. The prospect of increasing numbers of cyclists following the development of Exmo_17 going through Bidmead is of great concern to me and those residents who require and demand sheltered housing. As mentioned in paragraphs 7.46 and 7.52 there is the potential for amended and additional cycle routes that will connect with the southwest coastal path.

01:15:29I support these amendments to the cycle route which I think will benefit residents and tourists alike. However, there is still no mention of improved access to the Devon Cliffs Holiday Park, where is the proposal for Castle Lane we heard about once, or the new road mentioned in the Exmouth neighbourhood plan. One aspect of the developers' master plan is the new roundabout at the junction of Salterton Road and the Liverton Business Park.

01:15:57The committee should give this roundabout greater prominence in my view moving on to EXMO20 land of St John's the committee needs to be aware that I have very real concerns about highways access to this site due to the proximity of the Pebblebed Heaths and the impact upon wildlife as well as its visual impact upon highland the B3179 I cannot consider as acceptable for access to EXMO20. Are you seriously considering widening this road to connect the Sorted Road with the Hullam Road? What about the rest of the B1379? Shouldn't traffic be encouraged down the Sorted Road to pick up the Deenon Way, which has now been extended? There will be a minimum of 700 extra vehicle movements along the B13179 in that area, and it's just not on. I'm not having it.

01:16:50The comments given in the revised wording of paragraph 7.43 such as, and I quote, mitigation measures may be required to address unacceptable adverse highways impacts are a massive understatement. the report is trying to defend what is basically indefensible frankly it is the environment here that is more important than the housing turning EXMO20 to another example of suburbia would destroy the inner areas entire attractiveness for tourism as the impact upon the environment will be severe so finally will the committee kindly consider a more strategic approach here with joined up thinking. So consider Exmouth 18. Paragraph 7.62 states that access for this site will be from the Liverton Business Park. That's the roundabout I mentioned earlier on for Exmouth 17. Why is it not possible to use this site as an access to EXMO20? So please, can we consider a more wider view perhaps even placemaking when we are thinking about site allocations because they cannot be considered in isolation thank you chair thank you Councillor Hookway before I come into committee mr Freeman is there anything you want to pick up from any of those

01:18:20Comments or do you want to take a few questions first and then come back in the round take a few questions first. Colleagues outside or inside committee I see a question from Councillor Roy Collins and then any others I don't see any hands so we'll go to Councillor Roy Collins and then Councillor Brian Bailey. Thank you chair I'd like to support what Councillor Hookway has just said. Do you have a question Councillor Collins? Yes I do. I would like to know if there have been any public exhibitions of these plans in Exmo, so the public can look at them in a hall and ask officers questions. This was done 20 years ago when we were doing strategic plans. Has it happened now? Okay, thank you Councillor Collins.

01:19:16Councillor Brian Bailey, your question. Could you switch your microphone off please Roy thank you that's it I'd like to ask Mr Freeman please um we have been told of 700 houses on the X of 20 and then when you look into various other bits and pieces regarding X of 20 I've seen a thousand houses mentioned on a couple of documents now what what are what are the numbers you're actually looking for you're looking for a thousand looking for 700 bearing in mind half the site won't be available so you're not going to get 700 at all so you'd be lucky to get 350 if it was to go ahead so if you could give me the exact figures I beat you thank you Councillor Bailey there any other Councillor Davey thank you yeah I've got a few questions they're all related to EXMO20. We've heard a lot about the impact on wildlife and as has been pointed out in the report there's quite a lot of woodland around there. I thought the report dealt at great length with the

01:20:31Heritage impacts didn't deal so much with the wildlife and biodiversity impacts. So my question to officers is, could the parts of the site that we're looking at be developed without major harm to wildlife? Could that be mitigated in any way? We've heard quite a lot about the connection to the 3179. There's a spine road shown going across into the block marked as 12 on the diagram, is it possible to get connection into St John's Road via 12? There may be some constraints there, so I don't know if that's possible. And maybe Councillor Hookway, with his influence on Devon County Council, could get them to consider a 40 mile an hour limit um on the B3179 is there any possibility of that being delivered it would extend the Hulham road 40 mile an hour limit um and I think that could easily extend um either side of that junction at the top of Hulham road anyway um which it can be a dangerous junction anyway as traffic comes along there at some speed, as I discovered the other day,

01:22:00When a black BMW with no lights on emerged from the gloom of the woodland there. People who emerge regularly from that road will know what I'm talking about. But it wasn't too close for comfort, but these things can happen. So three questions there. can we avoid um major impacts on wildlife is there any possibility of connection through distant john's road via block 12 um and uh what would be the possibilities of reducing the speed limit on the B3179 okay thank you Councillor Davey mr Freeman is that enough questions for you or do you want a few more before we come to you I think before we get too many questions probably best to come back if I start with Councillor Davey' questions first I mean I think in terms of wildlife and biodiversity there's two issues obviously there's the wider issue in terms of the impact on the pebble red heaths and protected landscapes and there's the Habitat Regulations assessment which accompanies the plan that looks at the wider impacts there I don't have it on my screen but

01:23:18Page 65 of that document specifically looks at the impacts on the Pebble Bed Heaves, SAC and SPAR site and ultimately concludes in terms of the mitigations that are proposed within the plan that it would be acceptable as things stand. I would acknowledge in terms of the HRA work that there's ongoing work in terms of the issues of vehicle emissions and impacts on the Pebble Bed Heaves from that and we have another set of consultants looking at that and the mitigation strategies I do have to caveat that in terms of the HRA, in terms of that ongoing work, but the HRA that sits on our website as part of the evidence base comes to that conclusion.

01:24:00That's an independent conclusion from Footprint Ecology. That's not a piece of work we've done in-house. So that is an independent assessment of EXMO20 and the other sites in terms of its impact on the integrity and the biodiversity importance of the Pebble Bed Heaves, SAC and SPAR. In terms of the site itself, our own ecologist has looked at all of these main sites in terms of their impact.

01:24:28So I don't think there's anything unexpected there. but naturally this is a greenfield site so there are going to be hedgerows with habitats within them and other habitats within trees and other assets within the site that will need to be considered through more detailed biodiversity assessment work in support of any application and any species will need to be suitably protected and mitigation measures incorporated but that's a more detailed design matter but there's not anything that's a barrier to allocation at this stage in terms of the site itself in terms of the B3179 I think obviously if we're creating an access onto that there may well be a need to revisit speed limits along that route look at the visibility displays for that junction again those are detailed design points at the application stage but I'm trying to think I think at that point it is a national speed limit so I would imagine in terms of creating an access and visibility space and they well need to to look at that um but that's not something

01:25:41We would necessarily look at at this stage that's a detailed design point at the application stage again I understand the access on to uh St John's road through parcel 12 in terms of the plan that's on page 38 in the agenda has been looked at I believe vehicle access is not achievable at that point but certainly we would envisage pedestrian cycle access at that point to aid the accessibility of the site and access into the surrounding area from the site I think the other point was changes to Hulham road um obviously we've got some applications allocations coming forward in that area but I'm not aware of any particular changes to holland road that the highway authority have recommended through their comments um but again they may may wish to look at speed limits as the character of that area changes through some of these allocations but again that's outside of of this process um if I go back then to Councillor Bailey's point in terms of EXMO20 um the proposal is an allocation of around 700 homes and at least two hectares of

01:26:58Employment land with social and community facilities I'm not sure where the thousand homes has come from um but that's not in our minds um so I'm going back in sort of reverse order here um Council Collins raised a question about public exhibition uh so we did do public exhibition in Exmo as part of the regulation 18 consultation um we had an event in the ocean Centre on the seafront at that time so they have people have had an opportunity to come and talk to us about this and other sites in Exmo through that process. Moving backwards then Councillor Hookway raised some points in terms of Exmo_17 potential for improved access to Devoncliffe's Holiday Park and a roundabout on Sauterson Road at Liverton Business Park. I think the point is that we can only require the development to do what's necessary to make it acceptable in highways terms. So while those might be desirable highway improvements, if they're not necessarily for this development to be acceptable, we couldn't require the development to deliver them.

01:28:02And I think that's the issue here. I don't think the Highway Authority is saying those things are necessary. And so we couldn't require them through our policies. um the proximity to the Pebblebed Heaths and that access as I've already mentioned that is is a concern and still a question mark in terms of the impact of additional vehicle movements that are created over the Pebblebed Heaths and the impact of that on the environment there uh so we've got consultants doing a piece of work in terms of assessing that and developing a mitigation strategy um which we haven't received yet but we'll need to to come into the final evidence uh to support this work um before the second regulation 19 consultation could go out um I think that brings me to uh oh just one point that I think one of the public speakers mostly is mr humphrey's about a contradiction between paragraph 7.42 d in the report about the numbers that could be and that southern part of the site 7.42d when it talks about 300 is

01:29:09Talking about the capacity of the access onto St John's road at a southern part of the site rather than the capacity of the site itself which is what the plan I think that he referred to was referring to about 450 homes in that area so I don't think there's a contradiction I think they're talking about different numbers for different purposes one in relation to the capacity of the junction the other in terms of the capacity of the site and what it could accommodate um and given that I think we're only talking about 150 homes accessing at that southern part of the site the remainder would have to to be accessed to to the north onto the B3179 hopefully that answers all the questions for the moment chair okay thank you mr Freeman further questions I saw Councillor Hayward's hand go up earlier thank you chair it was just a question to officers if they could let me know how many dwellings, properties there currently are in Exmo, so we can get a correlation in percentage terms rather than in number terms.

01:30:09Thank you. I think that is probably something that will have to be looked up in short order, so I think [member of the public] is on that. Our resident Sherlock Holmes for this morning. Are there any other questions from committee? Councillor Ingham.

01:30:26Thank you, Chair. with regard to Exmo_47 and Mr. Freeman defended that going forward regarding after due consideration of its proximity to Point in View and Alarond and I remember Chair I think it was maybe 7 or 8 years ago when I was a member of the planning committee that an item came forward and we actually protected the land around all around and point in view and I think it was to say that there could be no change of usage or something like that no development further around that area and that was ratified um by the committee and by the council so if that was wrong why didn't the national trust asked for that to be extended why did this council ratify that and not extend it further to include right up to Exmo_47 or to include it they didn't so therefore I think mr Freeman's explanation is correct and it's justified because we certainly considered proximity of land to those heritage sites or maybe not heritage sites but you know the national trust sites and we wish to protect them we did that and that did not include um that site

01:32:04Exmo_47 so therefore it was not considered to be in relevant proximity to those sites so I think justified in saying that Exmo_47 is acceptable. Thank you. Okay thank you Councillor Ingham. I'm not 100% there was a question there but if I'm wrong please come back. If I'm right is that correct that we did that didn't we? I mean I don't recall a resolution of this council in terms of that I'm wondering if you're referring to the designation of the historic park and garden which wouldn't have been our decision. No it was planning wasn't it? Planning committee I I don't recall that but um I think the point is that it's not within the historic park and garden it's adjacent to it which was the point I was making so when that area was designated logically as you say it took account of the setting of the listed buildings in that area and that's not to say that this doesn't have any impact but it it does mean that um as I said I think with appropriate measures in terms of landscaping and design and layout of the site

01:33:18In principle it can be accommodated we just need to be aware of those sensitivities given its close proximity but it is because it's not within the historic parking garden it doesn't rule out development being acceptable in that location so I think we're on the same page but I don't thank you chair I didn't realize it wasn't our decision it was we noted it Thank you, Councillor Ingham. Your microphone as well, please. Thank you. Do any other members have questions for Mr. Freeman before we come to debate on the recommendations in the report? No? Okay. In which case then the floor is open for debate. Do any members outside committee first wish to contribute any further? Councillor Roy Collins.

01:34:00Thank you, Chair. I feel it's very important, this application, because of the wildlife and the pebble heaths and everything. It's a very sensitive site. There's a lot of European interest in it. And you need to be very careful when you come to make a decision here. I do travel down that road sometimes when I go to Exmouth and it's certainly not suitable for any increase in traffic and I think it's very wrong of you if you're planning 700 houses and only allow two speakers if you had a site with 10 houses you'd only be allowing two speakers, where's the fairness in that? Thank you thank you Councillor Collins I'm not going to relitigate the procedural decisions that we've made in trying to actually get this meeting to eventually make a decision and Councillor Hookway thank you chair for how did we come back again uh EXMO20 we understand that there are mineral rights there what is the mineral who owns the mineral rights to it does the do officers think that the mineral will be uh should be extracted before development or after development thank you

01:35:37That's question so we'll come straight to mr Freeman um I mean the the minerals being there doesn't mean they're going to be extracted before after or at any time it's just that um the county protects those areas where there are no minerals beneath sites um and put these uh require requirements in place in terms of the minerals plan because they don't know what might happen in the future in terms of need for minerals and what might need to be extracted at some point in the future. I don't think there are any plans to extract it at any point at this stage and as I said earlier the only part of the development that would currently go through that area is the access road and the county would not raise any concerns with the access road going through there if anything a road going through there would make it easier to extract the minerals if it ever came to it um but hopefully it wouldn't and they'll just sit there as a as a resource that's there

01:36:32But protected knowing that it can be accessed if it needs to be at some point in the future chair I'm sorry uh my questions haven't been answered what is the mineral who owns the mineral rights please so I understand it's sand and gravel that's beneath the site and it would just be owned by the landowner okay thank you mr human Councillor Hookway coming inside committee then Councillor Hayward thank you chair as I've said many times I really can't understand why any Councillor Wants to serve on this committee because we have the most unenviable task each time we try and develop a plan the goalposts change the numbers change we understandably listen to members of the public from different communities um no one really wants more housing no one wants the fields and the landscape near them desecrated and built on and yet everything everyone here who lives in a house effectively lives in somewhere where previously there was a field most of Axminster was fields I empathize with what council collins says that you know

01:37:50Farmland is disappearing but of course on the other side of that equation farmland is being sold to developers someone is making a profit out of that land so there's no innocent parties here but we have a task to do um a gentleman speaker earlier said about the fear yeah I fear having to find another 5 000 extra houses um because it would come back to EXMO20 you would had here potentially 700 um there is a slight query I have on the column uh the table of numbers within this on page 42 of the report just for officers benefit the numbers in the homes total don't add up to 848 they're 881 but effectively you have 700 848 add 20% to that and you're over a thousand that exponentially goes up now if I take the preset figures for Exmouth I appreciate we We haven't got the exact number of dwellings, but the preset figures for Exmouth are just over 13,000.

01:38:58So what you're proposing is an extra 1,000 homes, an extra 1,500 homes, so 10%, you know, 11%, 12%. Contrast with Axminster, there's already seen a 50% increase in its size. All of those homes built on landscapes, environmental habitat, green areas where no one wanted it. I myself fought two election campaigns on having no more housing in Axminster. It's simply not sustainable and yet here we are, Axminster taking an extra 1,000 to 1,500 extra homes and that's at 80% without going back and having a plan that's challenged, that fails and us having to find an extra 5,000. Now all of us on this committee, we could just backtrack now and say EXMO20 understand everyone a concern you have all the concerns in Honiton in Seton every community even you know Wimple Feniton and no one wants these extra houses but they're being foisted on us by a government and the previous government and I'm sure the next government will will do the same so we have to work towards within the planning law and the planning law has changed we're now

01:40:11Added to devolution that's going to throw another spanner into the work so we could actually all just say we'll just not do anything we'll take all these things out we'll take a gamble that it isn't a significant change and it is a gamble and then when we find actually it was significant so all the regulation 19 consultation falls apart it's a new plan by the way you've lost your transitional arrangements now find us 25,000 26,000 dwellings um elected councillors here will have to bear that responsibility and I and I say in the kindest way because I was in your position 10 years ago as a member of the public lobbying this authority lobbying as a town Councillor I won't be responsible it's easy to lobby and protest when you're not having to make the decision and having to come up with alternatives and I mean that respectfully but it is very easy when you're not sitting here having to make a decision bound by national legislation and the ever-shifting sands of planning law and planning requirements. So we have to make the best plan we

01:41:17Can. And yes, it is a gamble, but a gamble with an extra 5,000 properties. And without a Local Plan, East Devon is completely at the mercy of developers who will build where they damn well like they won't care please no thank you um and so if you could turn it off that would be really helpful thank you very much thank you um and and so this is what we are tasked with and I don't relish any more houses in Axminster personally because that's where I live we're going to get them we talk about it here but finding an extra 20 on top of that in an unsustainable location adding perhaps 40 percent to the size of a town rather than 13 percent this is the challenge we have and I we go around in circles trying to do this and each time we move forwards there's a new challenge there's new protests we have got to make a decision ultimately and it falls to members of this committee and I I really you know don't envy my role and my colleagues here in having to do this

01:42:25But this is where we are at so taking 700 out means we've got to find 700 somewhere else so if anyone here wants to put their hands up and say my town will take them please I look forward to hearing from you now where those 700 are going to go yes there's landscape requirements East Devon is blessed absolutely blessed with a huge number of grade one grade two listed buildings I think we have a greater proportion than a lot of the country so inevitably wherever you build in our towns and villages, you're going to build near a grade one or two listed structure, whether it's a church, a statue, a war memorial. We have the most glorious habitat. We've tried as a council to argue that we are unique. Two thirds of East Devon is covered by area of national landscape. It's SSIs, it's Pebblebed Heaths, it's coastal protection areas. We are unique. The government does not care. It's told us it does not care. No one is unique.

01:43:24Deliver the housing numbers we've told you to. And now we have an opportunity with this plan to get away with 80% of those numbers. Worked out as fairly and equitably as we can. Noting that no one wants the houses near them. I get that. I don't want the houses near me. I think it's unsustainable and it will ruin the town where I live and I brought up my family.

01:43:49This is where we are. And I wish there were 30 people from Axminster here protesting the same, but they aren't. People at Axminster obviously got used to the fact that we're going to build over farmland and pollute our river even more and lose all the habitat we have. But farmers are selling. Farmers are selling the land. They're not here. I don't see them here saying, oh, it's outrageous.

01:44:10They're happy to sell their land to developers. So sorry, Chair, a bit of a rant, but I just want to make clear to everyone here watching, everyone who reads the transcript afterwards, it's an impossible situation for this committee to make. It really is. So we've just got to do the best we can and try and deliver a plan that works for the whole of East Devon. Because if we don't proceed, it will be the whole of East Devon that suffers, not just Exmouth, not just Exminster, the whole of East Devon will suffer.

01:44:40Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Hayward. I'm not quite sure how to follow that. So I'll do it by going to Councillor Blakey and then Councillor Ian.

01:44:55Thank you, Chair. Yes, as you say, follow that. No point in expanding on what Councillor Hayward has said. I think he's covered things very well. Just a thought with regard to EXMO20, of course. The further north we go on that site, the more difficult matters become. might we consider just allocating some of the southern blocks and leaving the northern blocks as is not to be developed I'm thinking particularly about blocks one two and three and although not recommended possibly block four on the map on page 38 which would provide space for 569 dwellings out of a target of 700 that would be 81 percent now I know we still need to get to the overall number that has to be attained in order to meet the government target and this would leave us with a gap to fill but certainly a much smaller gap than if we were to simply turn around and say no we reject this as a site altogether so I know this sounds like a fudge and a compromise and probably it is but that is that something that we should consider I'll come

01:46:19To you at that point mr firman please if I may uh yes thank you chair um I mean I think effectively what you described council blake is where we are really by the time you take into account the 400 meter zone for the Pebblebed Heaths and the mineral extraction zone we end up with those northern parts of the site not coming forward for development in any event we did think about redrawing the boundary to to reflect that I think the difficulty is at this stage we don't know where the access road would come in from from the B3179 um and obviously the access road is part of the sites and needs to be within the site boundary so as things stand we've we've left the site boundary as originally proposed but obviously in the policies and the wording limiting development in in that area because of those other restrictions um so in effect they won't be developed other than the road coming through that area if I may just come back with a comment should we could we

01:47:19Then not tie this in with Exmo_18 and how the excess road run through that from Salterton Road I know that there's a bit of a pinch point on the northwestern corner south of 18 and south eastern corner of 20 which will probably involve going through some woodland but would that not provide a suitable alternative access road through each I understand that has been explored but um as you point out there are some levels issues with that and also watercourse in between the two sites as well um so that's not feasible as I understand it while I'm speaking I just pick up on I think matt did eventually find the figure for the number of households in Exmouth which was 16,000. Okay, thank you Mr. Freeman. Councillors Ingham and then Davey. Thank you Chair. It's interesting, I agreed pretty much with everything Councillor Hayward was saying and his concerns and he described his desire to see a fair and equitable process followed and listening to Councillor Blakey where he mentioned potential fudge and compromise to achieve an outcome to the East Devon Local Plan.

01:48:51Maybe halfway between those, some people would consider acceptable. The people of East Devon won't. I certainly don't. I'm really disappointed because I do believe that we've got a prescribed outcome that was determined somewhere about 2021-2022. And this has been followed all the way through this process. And that the deliberations, the vast majority of deliberations by this committee and the opinions of the public haven't really influenced the achievement of having a presentable East Devon Local Plan going forward, especially regarding Regulation 19, to the inspector.

01:49:51I still see it as flawed, and I don't see it as acceptable. And I believe we have to remember this isn't a decision for today. the outcomes of our decisions will be on our landscape for, if we get it right, a few hundred years before they're ripped up, thrown down, you know, ripped down and rebuilt. But I'm really concerned that we never started with the overall vision of saying, what is it we're trying to achieve here?

01:50:30As East Devon, we know we have to deliver. the national government fair enough but we didn't we went straight into policy and let policy and recommendations guide us through this process and look where we are I don't think any of us see it as being uh genuinely acceptable thank you chair I won't comment Councillor Uh davy Well, I think I have to thank Councillor Hayward for saying it all for us, really. None of us relish building houses on green fields. The house I live in, where I am in the Bacton area, that was a farm.

01:51:20And I've got a friend who recalls running over those fields where my house now stands. So all of us, as has been pointed out, live in homes on previously undeveloped land. I, with a somewhat heavy heart, I'm going to propose that we accept the Office of Recommendations on all the sites in Exmouth. I have concerns about Exmouth's sustainability. It obviously is a sustainable location. Where I live, I can walk and cycle into town, but the further out you go, the more difficult that becomes.

01:52:05Um but looking at the map um on page what helpfully it hasn't got a number uh 53 um it's pretty obvious that there are not many alternatives um or 52 and 53 it is um and so I think there's a lack of alternative sites within eczema as Councillor Hayward said nobody else wants to take our allocation. In terms of the number of homes, we're probably already taking a relatively small number of increase. All of this will be further tested at planning as these sites come forward. Exmo_17, there's already been, because that site is already coming forward quite a lot of public consultation on that the developers have produced a master plan they've held a number of public exhibitions which I've attended and it's been very interesting to see how their plans have modified um through the feedback that they've received and I would hope that if and when this site comes forward particularly x20 I'm referring to um that it it will do the same that the developers will produce a master plan show how they

01:53:31Can mitigate the effects on wildlife on transport and so on and so I'm going to propose that all of those sites in Exmouth are adopted as per officer recommendation Thank You Councillor Davis so just to be clear you're proposing we accept officers recommendations uh throughout the chapter if you like on Exmouth in this report okay thank you um damien has reminded me uh as always thank you damien uh that I need to immediately look for a seconder for that proposal Councillor Levine do you wish to speak at this point yeah I just want to say that I agree with everything that Councillor Hayward said and Councillor Davine for me it's one of the things we're taking a gamble I'm not afraid of taking gambles I've always been in the top of the barricades but in this thing it's a question of either satisfying the few people in Exmouth and the thousands more people if we're going to have who are going to suffer if we're going to have to find five home for five thousand more homes

01:54:39So in my philosophy I would support the motion okay thank you Councillor Levine Councillor Brian Bailey. Thank you very much Chair. Well I've listened patiently to all the pros and cons and I've got a long list here, I think it's 14 different things that Mr Freeman said at the beginning of this meeting which in my interpretation tell me that this site is unsustainable we seem to be bending over backwards to try and make it work. Why?

01:55:18There is a limit to what you can do and what you can't do because of the main road by the archery club you can't enter or exit the site there because of the 400 metre buffer zone you can't practically go through southern wood it's a private road and a private housing estate that's not the way to build out you don't go through someone's garden which you're effectively doing going through southern wood and you're going through a wooded area as well and a water course that's not the way to do it so these problems should be sorted out and solved by the developer I don't think it's our job to try and bend over backwards to get this development for the developer we should be looking after the people who represent us who voted us in and with 1,100 complaints that's a significant amount of complaints from excellence and I can't disagree with them but I'm at a loss to understand why we're doing it I really am because everything we've got, statutory consultees most if not all of them are objecting

01:56:24In some way or another so just look at what you're looking at, don't go deeper over here, there right in front of you, all these people objecting, and quite rightly too in my opinion, but I cannot see the reason why if someone can explain to me pardon me, I know about the numbers, but it's not all about the numbers as Councillor Hayward have said earlier, and I can't disagree with what he said, but these buildings will be here for 100 years at least. What a legacy we're leaving. A mess. Because it's not sustainable. If this is anywhere else, [member of the public] said it's not sustainable because the access isn't right. There's no schools. There's no doctors, dentists, no shops. Well, this answers all that. There's none of the above in any of this site. So why progress it? I'm I'm totally against it.

01:57:13Thank you very much, Chair. I think I need to pull you up on a couple of points there, Brian, and specifically what you said at the end. If members cast their minds back to, well, nearly a year ago now at this point, as we're in September, the reason that this site was brought into the plan, because as others have rightly highlighted it was originally not recommended by officers to go in is because by building at a greater scale than we achieve on all of those individual smaller sites you achieve the quantum of development necessary to put the infrastructure in as part of the development um so you know I I take the point there brian that maybe there isn't a primary school there now the whole point is by achieving a quantum of development concentrated in one place you achieve the necessary funds to put the infrastructure in um so I I wanted to pull you up on on that point specifically because it's it's the very same rationale that we've used um to to pursue the second new community um because by concentrating

01:58:24A substantial amount of development in one place you get a better outcome um so you know I I take the point maybe we could kill EXMO20 and try splitting it up in a bunch of sites in Exmouth or elsewhere I don't think that's a better outcome there we go that's my view um do any others wish to speak on the resolution that we have in front of us Councillor How thank you I I actually really used to hate Councillor Hayward when he started politics a long time ago but he has matured so well and his speech today was absolutely spot on so I will I will pass that compliment on to him to start with um slightly backhanded himself said he was quite arrogant when he first started and he was a little bit but he's absolutely his speeches these days are absolutely spot-on anyway moving on cast the Freeman's um Councillor Mr Freeman said about the no ability to access through Exmouth 18 um because of watercourse and various other bits and pieces now obviously you can access across any water course you just got to build a bridge easier said

01:59:35Than done and everything else the cost that the mitigation or the the argument then is about cost and I suppose that comes the question is who should we be talking to about joining together experts 20 and 18 for access purposes only to provide a stable road down you know to get over a lot of these issues I know it will hit affordable housing numbers because that's the only thing that ever moves these days or government might alleviate and actually help us but I do think we should try to look at all these issues to see if we can make this the very best we can and that's just the question I've got thank you um wendy I wonder if we can go to hdmi too actually while she's doing that, I mean I think Exmo_18 is a site owned and being promoted by Clinton Devon Estates and obviously there will need to be a road into Exmo_18 in order to deliver that but you can just about see pointer so looking at this area effectively Exmo_18 is

02:01:02In here, so you'd be talking about coming through here as I understand so uh from memory this site does drop away quite steeply at the southern part certainly it's quite noticeable if you go to the southern part of the existing liverton business part how much lower that is you've also got quite a substantial bit of woodland in this corner that you'd have to go through as well as over the watercourse so it's not impossible as you say Councillor How but it's not something that's been proposed as far as I'm aware and it would have significant costs and environmental impacts I would suggest in terms of doing that but I don't think the allocation that we're proposing precludes that if the developer wanted to try and come up with a solution with Clinton Devon Estates to achieve that but it's not what's been promoted and before us and I think in terms of creating an access while I accept the issues of the B3179 and the relationship with the um pebble red heaps creating an access in from here is is going to be far

02:02:13Simpler but there are going to be significant costs of running a road across well I'm pointing there I don't know where the road would be I would stress in terms of b3719 but it's obviously got to come right the way across to this line here before it's going to be serving any any homes at least um so there's going to be significant cost in that as well um so I think we can certainly send the message that we're open to looking at alternative access arrangements but it's difficult to see how that would be achieved um but happy to look at it um someone's calling me um but I think that's as far as I can go in terms of um your your comment council how because that's not what's before us but equally I don't think we're precluding it in the allocation that's being presented either. Okay thank you Mr Freeman. Do any other members wish to speak?

02:03:11Councillor Levine very quickly as you have once already. Okay we have had a second Councillor Levine seconded it earlier on. Do any other members wish to speak on this allocation? We have had a call to move to a not allocation on the recommendation that's in front of you. Okay. In which case, we come to a vote then. Councillor Davey' proposal, seconded by Councillor Levine, is to accept all of officers' recommendations in the Exmouth section of this report, so only those regarding the Exmouth sites that have been considered.

02:03:58Is everybody clear what they are voting on, please? Okay. I hear no issues. So with that, then, I will call for all those in favour, please. so for the record that's nine in favor those against please that's one against

02:04:29And those abstaining please that's two abstentions I think okay those numbers stack up so the recommendation then is carried we're going to take sorry Damien yes we're going to take we've been going for two hours now so we're going to take a 15 minute break now until quarter past 12 please okay thank you

02:22:51Members we will uh pick off where we left off please uh and next up we're going to look at Axminster please so again we'll take presentation from mr Freeman uh then public speakers then committee wendy can we go to hmi2 please sorry to interrupt your coffee thank you uh thank you chair so moving to Axminster excuse me there's a couple of sites in Axminster where we've done some further assessment work. The first is AXMI 01A. So this is a two-hectare employment allocation that was included in the plan to help to balance employment land provision in the town with the housing sites coming forward. I think we knew at the time that there were a number of constraints to this site, including flooding, but also historic constraints in terms of there's pillboxes on the site and that's raising some issues in terms of the Historic Environment Record Centre at Devon County Council who are concerned about areas of archaeological interest on the site. So aside from the pillboxes that includes a potential route of the Foss Way, Roman

02:24:05Road, the route of the Axminster and Lime Regis Light Railway, a trackway that may reflect an earlier feature and find spots for prehistoric flint and medieval pottery. The site is also close to two scheduled ancient monuments, Newenham Abbey and a Roman fort and later Romano British settlement, which has led to objections to the allocation by Devon County Council unless further archaeological work is undertaken. We've requested that the site owner undertake this work but it's not proceeded and so we're struggling to justify this site in light of those objections again as I mentioned in terms of another employment site we have the benefit of a little bit of leeway in terms of employment sites because we've allocated more than is technically needed in the plan as things stand so the loss of two hectares of employment land in this location is not considered to be a significant change in terms of the wider plan, but obviously unfortunate to reduce that balance between new homes and employment spaces in Axminster. But we feel reluctantly that we have to recommend the removal of this site because of those constraints.

02:25:19Turning to a cluster of sites that must be road, Axme 0208 and 09, if you take them all together they're an allocation for 438 dwellings during the consultation a number of issues were raised with these sites around heritage and archaeological sensitivity due to proximity again to the Roman Fort and Foss Way that I mentioned with the previous sites these sites just being excuse me off off to the to the east of those road safety concerns in terms of the impact on the A35 due to additional turning movements objection to the employment allocation community hall on viability grounds from the developers themselves. Road safety and access issues on Musbury Road, concerns about adequacy of sewage infrastructure and surface water flooding as well. So again the Devon Historic Environment Record Centre identified potential areas of archaeological interest particularly in the northern part of the site. Again the route of the Roman road, defensive works dating from 1940 and prehistoric Roman and medieval artifacts in this case. So Devon County have objected to the allocation until further archaeological work is

02:26:32Undertaken. Historic England in addition have raised archaeological objections regarding the potential harm to the setting of the scheduled ancient monument. So further work is needed in terms of assessing the impact on those remains. In this case additional work is being undertaken but until the trenches, basically they need to dig some trenches and do some excavation work to understand what's underneath there um and that work is ongoing at the moment but subject to that work um the recommendation is to continue to um to allocate uh these sites as as things stand but obviously we might need to revisit that once we've got those archaeological works uh undertaken and completed so in the meantime uh there's two recommendations on Axminster um deletion of Axome 01A and as things stand at least retention of Axome 02, 08 and 09. Thank you Chair Thank you Mr Freeman we have one member of the public registered to speak [member of the public] of Carnie Sweeney please Thank you Chair Members CG Fry and Son is promoting this site for development and it does things properly

02:27:55So even before there have been comments from Historic England, Devon County Council, it had done GFS survey of the northern part of the site. We've heard a little bit about that. And a trenching plan has been agreed with the county archaeologist and trenching is going to start in the very northern part of the site, around 30 trenches. They're going to be excavated from the middle of this month. Probably going to get the results, I guess, November time. So we'll know a lot more about the archaeology on the northern part of the site, which is going to be the most sensitive.

02:28:29As you go further south and east, the GFIS survey says that the sensitivity diminishes quite significantly. And actually, the county archaeologist is happy for no further trenching to take place in those less sensitive areas until such time as a planning application is submitted. But we've already been in discussions with the county archaeologist, archaeologists and we've been looking at options to actually protect any archaeological remains of significance as part of the development and actually incorporate them within the scheme so that they play a key role in placemaking and provide wider community benefits and actually without development the irony is we wouldn't know anything about what's there and we wouldn't be able to experience and interpret interpret them so members I think the officers report is a really good one it's very comprehensive um and and we ask you really to to to uh endorse it um and and uh until further work is done and completed and more is known uh to retain the allocation thank you very much thank you mr coals um members I think that's uh all we need to hear

02:29:44From well that's all I've got written down to hear from for members of the public um so unless Mr. Freeman wants to add anything? No. We come to members. Any questions? Councillor Fernley. Sorry, it's just a quick one. The gentleman referred to when the results of this will be done. Are we not running out of time for the answers to these, to make decisions? Mr. Freeman. Yes, I did comment to Bat, but that was a bit later than I'd hoped we'd have results in terms of the archaeological works hopefully we might have some initial findings um before then obviously the plan is at least as things stand to have the uh second Reg 19 consultation launching in october so if we don't get the final results until mid-november that's a little bit later than I'd hoped um we'll obviously pick this up with them and see if we can get some initial findings before then so we've got a bit more clarity before we uh we go to that consultation um bs mindful the timetable is tight on a lot of things members I don't sense there's a huge amount

02:30:54Of interest in discussing what in my view of some fairly uncontroversial recommendations um bearing in mind the precedent with the decision to allocate already um so I'm happy unless any members want to jump in uh to propose that we accept officers recommendations uh on the Axminster sites and I'll propose that from the chair Councillor Hayward I'm happy to second it I mean all I would say is if you could we can't call up the slide now there was an earlier slide regarding the axe axe me over one and you'll see it runs entirely along the site there we are of the the a 35 and And I'd probably contest that the A35 covered up or discovered a fair amount of artefacts, but that was considered necessary for the relief of the traffic in the town.

02:31:49I mean, people have been in Axminster since 300 BC. It's a very, very old town. So, yeah, I mean, I can understand why it's being taken out. If we haven't got the data, we then, you know, if they're not prepared to produce it. And we do have alternatives for employment in the north of town and potentially within the town and to the east of the town. So I'm happy to second if you're happy to propose, Chair.

02:32:20OK, thank you, Councillor Hayward. Any other comments on these? No, in which case then we'll go straight to a vote. The proposal before evokes is as the officers set out in their recommendations in the report. All those in favour, please. Account 11. Those against and those abstaining, one. Okay, thank you, members. That is clearly carried. That brings us then to the Honiton sites. Mr. Freeman, your presentation, please.

02:33:00Yes, thank you, Chair. So if we start at a cluster of sites on land adjacent to St. Michael's Church, so this is HONI 07, 12 and 13, which together combined amount to 111 homes as allocations.

02:33:22So these sites were allocated because I believe members felt the site was consistent with the special strategy being close to town Honiton with good access to facilities public transport town centre and employment land however there's always been issues with these sites in terms of their landscape impact and impact on heritage assets which are reasons why officers raised concerns with them uh initially um so we've received a number of objections um to them particularly with regard to uh the landscape and heritage impacts from the town council and from historic england in particular um and the town council have also raised concerns about the legitimacy of the consultation process um due to the late inclusion of honey 12 although I think it was part of the regulation 18 consultation albeit as a site that wasn't recommended for inclusion by officers at that time things have slightly moved on since members decided to allocate the site in that since that happened the adjacent former sexton's house has now been listed as grade two in addition to the church of st michael and all angels which has been grade two star listed since 1949

02:34:38And listing of the church has also recently been amended now to formally include the lich gate which is at the drive at the entrance to the site as a listed building as well so the heritage impacts of this these allocations are now even greater than they were when it was decided to allocate them and as officers we remain concerned about the impact on the Blackdown Hills National Landscape which is partly adjacent to and it's also seen within the context of the East Devon national landscape and if I go to the next slide I don't know how well you can see that I'll get my pointer out but effectively the site sits up here and so is quite prominent in the landscape will be it read in the context of much the rest of the town but it does sort of protrude out as a bit of a finger out from the edge of the existing built form cutting into this slope and would be quite prominent in the landscape so in light of the objections that we've received and these

02:35:44Concerns we feel we're struggling to justify continuing to allocate these sites and so the recommendation is to delete sites HONI 07, 12 and 13 from the plan so if I move on to HONI 18 this is the site I referred to earlier that in the feedback report didn't show us having a higher We had an average level of objection, but we subsequently identified that something that had been included in that, just as a letter was actually a petition from 80 people.

02:36:19So, again, apologies for that error, but we've now included a reassessment of this site within the report in light of that. So a number of issues were raised through the consultation. Road safety and access has always been one of the primary issues with this site. And this was a reason why it wasn't originally included. Members might recall that this site wasn't consulted on at Regulation 18 stage because we didn't feel that it had scope at that stage because of the access issues.

02:36:53But subsequent discussions have taken place with national highways and with the police and they feel that an introduction of a new speed limit extending the existing 30 mile an hour limit in a southeasterly direction up the A35 would overcome those concerns. The police have no objection to that change and that would enable an adequate access and visibility splays to be provided. And there's no objection from the Highway Authority on road capacity concerns.

02:37:21In terms of environmental wildlife obviously this is a greenfield site so they're inevitably habitats and local wildlife interest within the site but there are no statutory designations at the site plus with biodiversity net gain in place site development office scope for overall net wildlife benefits there are some heritage and visual impact concerns the grade two listed copper castle a former toll house and the associated gates lie to the southwest of the site on the opposite side of the A35 these are the only listed heritage assets in close proximity to the site and obviously need to be sensitively considered in terms of their impact and the setting of them but we don't consider it to be a constraint to development coming forward fundamentally on the site and again there's potential for adverse impacts in terms of the wider landscape the site abuts the Blackdown Hills National Landscape which is to the southern site boundary the visually the site is seen within the context of the existing built development and its prominence in terms of the wider landscape is less significant than other sites so I mentioned that the site

02:38:37Wasn't included at Reg 18 stage we have obviously now done consultation at Reg 19 stage some rejecters raise concerns about that process but there's no reason why further sites can't be included at regulation 19 stage and obviously we've had the opportunity to consider the views that have been raised through that process having done so and undertaken further assessment of the site officers recommendation is to retain the allocation of honey 18 within the plan uh for 136 homes um turning to the remaining sites then in honington um gh ed 39 b and 39 a which is uh you can see on the screen um so 39b was allocated for 100 homes in the first regulation 19 plan but submissions from the developer make provision for up to 300 homes on the site we originally went for a lower estimate but having considered that further and noting proximity to the national landscape we feel that there's some scope to increase that equally there were issues in terms of the southern site I think it is in terms of the relationship with narrow access

02:40:00Under the railway bridge which constrains safe and efficient movement to inform the site we've done some further work on that in terms of discussions with Devon County Council and their view is again that a larger development could be delivered on that site and could help to deliver improvements to walking and cycling and bus access which are poor at the moment they also advise that impacts on the strategic road network would be negligible so the proposal is to make up for the recommended loss of allocations on the previously discussed sites in Honington around St. Michael's Church and increase the capacity of these sites so that GHED 39A would be increased to 115 homes and 39B to 195 homes. We feel these can be acceptably accommodated within these sites and within the landscape despite the constraints that they face so the recommendation is to increase those sites by those numbers the overall impact of these changes would be obviously removal of the sites around st michael's church increasing the numbers on these two sites but the net result would be the same number of homes

02:41:11Coming forward in honlerton as in the first Reg 19 consultation so mindful of the guidance I gave you earlier about significant changes to the plan this would not be changing the strategy that underpins the plan or the number of homes coming forward in any particular location. In fact, we wouldn't be adding in any additional allocations, simply increasing the numbers on sites with a greater capacity than was previously realised.

02:41:36So that's what's recommended in terms of Honolton. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you, Mr Freeman. We do now have a number of speakers on various of these sites, so we will go through those as they appear on my list here. So first up, I have [member of the public] of Bell Cornwall. And after that, [member of the public], could you be ready, please?

02:42:13Good afternoon, everybody. We're here today on behalf of Humor State and in connection with Honeo 7, which is the triangular piece of land that sits adjacent to St. Michael's Church, Honiton. It's obviously incredibly disappointing to read the officers are now proposing to deallocate Honeo 7. As a reminder, the site has a long history of promotion. It scored well in the HELAA. It was a second-choice allocation in the Reg 18 consultation, and at last September's site allocation committees, officers and members endorsed to allocate the site for 30 homes.

02:42:44So this is that triangle on the front of the site. Over the passage of time, HONI 7 and HONI 12 have merged to form a single allocation for 101 homes. We were always a bit concerned about that approach because of the potential impact the inclusion of the more prominent and larger HONI 12 would have on our client's site. and on reviewing the officer report before you many of the issues flagged seem to have arisen from the grouping of those sites together we've previously circulated a layout plan which shows how honey 7 was originally promoted as a sustainable standalone site for 30 homes this can still be delivered as part of a larger parcel or a single parcel if members wish two issues have obviously been flagged in terms of the objections generated these relate to landscape impact and heritage on landscape the honey 7 part of the site is very well very well contained there's a mature tree belt around the site it would screen much of the development and with additional planting we know that it can mitigate a lot of its visual impact

02:43:39And it wouldn't be classed as major development in national landscape terms it's very limited with regard to heritage assets the adjacent cottage and the church gates have become listed during the process of consultation obviously the report before you suggested that that impact cannot be mitigated however we would strongly challenge that the um the gates that have become listed are 90 meters from our site entrance and using our proofing layouts that we're promoting the site with would be 200 meters from the nearest house with no intervisibility between the heritage assets or any houses similarly the new listed cottage would be some 130 meters from the nearest house and whilst it is an attractive building it's clear to us that any impact on the setting of that building can be adequately mitigated by providing a layout which puts open space bng planting on this boundary and between the properties the position raised by historic england and obviously officers in in their recommendations and general approach to landscape and heritage matters um seem somewhat consistent we've obviously heard the um the

02:44:37Presentations uh in Exmouth just previously and the intention to keep those allocations there by comparison honey 7 has a fraction of that impact um and ultimately you know taking another site as an example there's a site in Plym tree an allocation is being proposed there for 30 homes right next to a grade one listed church but ultimately there is space to design around these heritage constraints and to deliver development comes comfortably and a similar approach can be taken here finally we would just ask members to consider the benefits of honey 7 it's incredibly sustainably located in terms of its proximity to public transport and its services and facilities to the town and it can be delivered to mitigate its own heritage and landscape matters And just to finish off, obviously, given the widely balanced position regarding overall housing numbers, we believe this allocation can be retained at HONI 7, along with securing an uplift on the other sites already in the town. Thank you.

02:45:33Okay. Thank you, [member of the public]. Next up then, please, [member of the public], to be followed by Stuart Lees.

02:45:42Good morning. My name is [name removed], and I speak on behalf of the landowners of site HONI 12. naturally it was disappointing to read the recent officer recommendation to withdraw the site as a proposed allocation and I'd like to address the three main issues raised in the officer's report firstly regarding access from higher brand lane our previous consultation response has been misinterpreted the landowners of site honey 12 and site honey 07 have had positive discussions and fully support access via honey 07 from weatherall road which is the logical solution to avoid further confusion and to assist the committee, the landowners are happy to withdraw the suggested amendment and proceed with the policy as drafted. Secondly, regarding concerns relating to heritage and landscape, the officer report concludes that heritage concerns cannot be resolved through policy wording, which we don't agree with. Historic England themselves acknowledge that development could potentially be facilitated on site HONI 12, and [member of the public] just explained heritage mitigation in relation to site honey oh seven site honey 12 sits further from the identified heritage assets and benefits

02:46:56From strong existing buffers including hedgerows trees and green space appropriate policy wording could therefore be included requiring a full heritage assessment at the planning stage and a design led master plan this approach is already used elsewhere in the plan and there is precedent within other adopted local plans including in relation to sites near listed parish churches. [member of the public] referred to several instances this morning in relation to sites demonstrating similar concerns. We note that the proposed alternative allocation at the eastern end of the town presents similar issues of landscape impact and locality beyond the existing built settlement. Whilst I note the photograph contained within the officer report and which Mr. Freeman put up this morning, it would perhaps have been reasonable to include an additional photograph from the eastern end of the town, where I suspect we would find that the alternative allocation would feature much more prominently thirdly regarding the introduction of site honey 12 the town council have now raised concerns about the legal process associated with the introduction of site honey 12. I make no comment on that process but of course it's disappointing

02:48:01Given that the site has formed part of Local Plan discussions for well over 24 months the right approach must be to review the site on its merits and not simply dismiss it on that basis in conclusion we don't agree with the officer recommendation to remove site honey 12 as an allocated site which is fundamentally deliverable particularly where the officer also highlights landscape and access concerns that may impact the suggested alternative allocation and which need to be addressed I've explained how the concerns raised within the officer report can be satisfied for the reasons explained and to avoid any risk of the inspector concluding that the withdrawal will represent a material change I therefore respectfully ask councillors to retain site honey 12 in the proposed allocation with suitable policy wording to deal with the heritage and landscape concerns raised thank you thank you mr luxton and excellent timing may I say mr stewart lees please to be followed by mr simon coles thank you for the chance to raise serious concerns about honey 18 on march the 15th this year I found out about the honey 18 plan

02:49:16I live in east Honiton just off the a35 on king's road and can appreciate the very real problems in the plan having spoken to neighbors and in view of the march 31st deadline which is a couple of weeks away I put together a petition expressing our concerns in just a few days sitting around my work and family commitments over 80 people signed the petition not one person said they didn't want to sign it of that 80 only one couple knew about the plan every single person expressed on hearing the plan their concerns regarding the traffic flow and the safety of the A35 as it comes into Honiton unlike you can't really see that on the map you had it comes down into Honiton down a very steep hill. It's so steep that the original plans for bypass were thrown out because they couldn't cope with the steepness, so it's very steep. It has two S-bends, so visibility is very poor. The roads are not easy to drive.

02:50:26And a series of S-bends come down to just before the Copper Castle and everyone in the area knows this is not an easy or safe bit of road. Not only that, but the flow of traffic, which is cars, heavy lorries, farm machinery, make the road extremely busy. It's one of the primary routes into Devon and comes all the way from Southampton. So the suggestion of a new junction for the proposed site, just above the Copper Castle, seems to everyone who knows it, very unsafe and very dangerous. And I would ask you to rethink and go back to the highway agency and the police. And my question on that would be, because is are they fast-tracking a poor decision because of the pressure of housing?

02:51:15Residents with longer memories recall plans in the 80s, excuse me, in the 90s and the 2000s for a bypass to connect the 835 with the 8303, but such plans were never delivered. I've given you some highlights from reports in 1997, 2009 with some of the highlights on it what they all recognize is the heavy flow and the danger of the unsafe or difficulty of the road that everyone recognized and they knew they needed a bypass but they couldn't afford it and couldn't um put it closer to Honiton so it seems to me what's happening is they've gone we can't do a bypass because it's too expensive oh I know let's let's build some more houses just on the A35, and the most dangerous little S-Bend, oh, that will be right, because that will solve the problem.

02:52:09I think everyone who lives locally will know this is not a good idea. This is not a question of being NIMBYs. This is a question of a seriously flawed traffic plan coming into Honiton. We could add in wildlife, we could add in the beauty of the area. All these things are recognised. But we raise severe and serious concerns. Now, the petition was handed on March the 27th before the deadline.

02:52:35It was found yesterday by Wendy in your post room. I don't know what happened, but it's not okay. And that means I would say that you need to go back and re-look at this in the light of strong opinion and in light of what I'm saying. Because at safety level, this makes no sense at all. At traffic flow, this makes no sense at all. And I'm just about to finish.

02:52:59Two thoughts. the plan is a bureaucratic square peg trying to fit into a local community round hole you can do it with a very big hammer but the damage will be considerable and will last for many years yes government housing is needed the answer is not a badly thought plan though and not a shoddy plan that ignores the very real issues of the A35 and the requests and the cry of local people that this is not a good plan for the East End of Honnerton.

02:53:33Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. Mr Coles. Thank you, members. I'm speaking in connection with HONI 18. I think [member of the public] has raised some good points, and I think those are reflected in the petition. And I think it's important to respect the views of those local residents. I think for me, these are the sorts of comments that could be leveled at pretty much any of the allocations that you've considered throughout the whole Local Plan process.

02:54:18I think it's important just to remember [member of the public] advice reminding us all of the professional views of the police, the highways agency and your highway authority. None of them have any objections to this proposal in highway terms. And actually, I'm not a highways expert, but it seems to me the best way of dealing with highway safety is reduce speeds, and that's exactly what this proposal does. It extends the 30 and the 40 graduated speed limit further up the hill, slowing traffic down.

02:54:54And I think your officer's report, I think, deals with the issues raised in the petition incredibly comprehensively, each and every issue. you'll make your own minds up on on that members but but it seems to me that all of the points have been addressed there will be further opportunity for the residents to have their say and indeed our clients will make sure that there is full and meaningful engagement with the community when the time comes if the allocation is retained so we ask members to endorse your officers recommendation and retain the allocation thank you very much thank you mr coals um last but by no means least uh for the honington sites and I apologies uh I'm going to mispronounce your surname but miss bethen hay good afternoon chair members I am here today representing my client taylor wimpy for promoting land off northcott hill both north and south of the railway line both sites were originally identified in your draft Local Plan each as allocations for 100 homes following further technical work officers are now recommending that site gh ed 39a north of the

02:56:18Railway line be increased to 115 homes and gh ed 39b south of the railway line be increased to 195 homes with the recognition that further dwellings could be deliverable. We fully support these recommendations. Our technical evidence shows that GHED 39B can comfortably accommodate up to 300 homes. GHED 39A lands north of the railway line already has a resolution to grant planning permission for 115 homes with a decision notice due shortly demonstrating deliverability.

02:56:56My client has been promoting land south of the railway line, GHED 39B, for many years with a full technical evidence base. We are now preparing an outline planning application for up to 300 homes to be submitted this year, which will provide clear evidence of deliverability as the Local Plan moves towards examination. In preparing this application, we have engaged with Devon County Council as highways authority. They are supportive of our transport strategy, which includes signalising under the railway bridge, extending the footway into Honiton and widening sections of Northcote Hill.

02:57:33Landscape has also been central to our approach. While national landscape boundaries are drawn tightly against Honiton's edge, in contrast, both our sites lie outside of this designation and some 170 metres from its boundary. Our landscape-led master plan restricts development to the western parts of the site and the lower contours and provides substantial landscape buffers, ensuring the scheme is well contained and does not harm the setting of the national landscape.

02:58:04Taylor Wimpey is a national house builder with a proven record of delivery in East Devon. We can provide the Council with the certainty that both sites will contribute in the short to medium term, supporting your five-year housing land supply and strengthening the trajectory of the Local Plan. In summary, we support officers' recommendation to uplift both allocations but respectfully request that GHED 39B is further increased to 300 homes.

02:58:31This would optimise the site's potential, make efficient use of land and provide East Devon with a stronger, more resilient Local Plan capable of meeting housing needs in full.

02:58:43Thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you very much. I believe that brings us to the end of our public speakers list for the Honiton sites. So I'll look to Mr. Freeman. Is there anything you want to pick up from any of those comments? Nope. Okay. In which case then we come to the membership. I have a feeling we might have a couple of comments from outside of committee on these. So I'll come first to, I saw Peter's hand first. Sorry, Roy. Councillor Faithfull.

02:59:13Thank you, Chair. Well, I've got a few things I want to say about various sites. The St. Michael's Church area sites, public transport, you have a very comprehensive bus service in that area.

02:59:37You've got the what have I got here 26 367 and the 44 a going practically sub well two of them are going actually along the edge of the site and the other one of the 44 a goes up the Church Hill and out to Axminster from St. michael's church so you already have a substantial public transport there but what is how are you going to do anything with the other side there's still questions aren't we yeah so what are you doing about the public transport for um northcote area do you have any other questions peter because it might be worth asking um I if the answer is no that's all right yeah there is is it possible to bring up um google street scene for the view I might want to save that still uh comments afterwards second part I think we might struggle to achieve that peter we can have a go but if you maybe if wendy can maybe bring that up for the second part that might help okay fine um which site do you want street fuel it for honington uh copper hit copper castle

03:01:13Honey 18 honey 18 yeah entrance we will we will see if we can arrange that but I make no promises um the public transport question do we have an answer to that one oh well I mean largely this is an issue that will need to be resolved at the application stage through discussion with public transport providers but logically a development of this scale will attract public transport routes being extended into this area of the town to improve service provision because there'll be demand there uh from residents to to use those services um so I think there's plenty of scope to improve public transport into this area uh also I think um the developers talking about improved um public transport walking cycling provision as well so um I think that will all follow through the application process but I don't have detailed answers to what provision could be made now thank you mr Freeman Councillor Collins do you have questions at this stage please thank you chair honey 18 I was debarred from speaking because it wasn't in

03:02:23My ward last year at one of the meetings um the public have not been consulted on this this only slipped in last week on july the 8th when you had your meeting I pleaded that this be reconsidered only 18 and nobody on the committee here supported it and I as far as I knew it wasn't going to be reconsidered. Well, if you've reconsidered it, why didn't you consult me being a Honnerton member and the town council? The town council has never been consulted in their submission to East Devon, which I've got a copy of here. You seem to have mixed it up, the legal challenge from Honolton Town Council was for Honolton 18.

03:03:35Not the St Michael's sites. No, it is a lot of things have gone wrong with this procedure. And I did plead last year that you have an exhibition in Honolton and explain to the residents what you wanted to do with Honolton 18, but nothing has happened. Nothing's been in the press. I was told there were going to be press releases. Nothing at all. The public have been kept in the dark and this plan has been sneaked in all the while. Sneaked in last year, sneaked in again now.

03:04:14I'm not at all happy about it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Collins. Were there any questions in there that you wanted to come back to, Mr Freeman? All I'd say in terms of Councillor Collins' comments is I've acknowledged that this wasn't part of the regulation 18 consultation but it was part of the regulation 19 consultation that we ran earlier this year that uh finished the end of march there was lots of publicity around that consultation uh press releases um posting on social media to draw attention to that consultation and we've received responses from both the public and the town council on this site so I don't think it's true to say that we haven't consulted on this site we we clearly have and through this report we're considering those comments the feedback that we received except it wasn't consulted at Reg 18 stage which does set it apart from a lot of the other sites it's only had one round of consultation but that is legitimate in terms of the legislation and I've explained why that's the case because we didn't believe that an acceptable access arrangement

03:05:20Could be achieved at the time of the Reg 18 consultation further work and discussion with the police and the highway authorities demonstrated that acceptable access can be achieved and that's why it was added in a Reg 19 stage thank you thank you mr Freeman committee any questions please Councillor Ingham statement on the consultation in general not just for but um I think the general public sometimes misunderstand what's going on and that let's say you may go to public consultation saying these are the ones that we favor these are the ones we don't then it goes to committee they some of them get changed around and uh they didn't panic then suddenly they are panicking because the ones they thought was safe wouldn't do suddenly aren't um And then that consultation becomes confused.

03:06:25A lot of people have said to me, I know in my patch, but we've already answered this. Do we have to do it again? Well, apparently, yes, because East Devon as a whole will seem to change their mind. I think that's the problem and that, you know, the accusations about Mr Freeman putting things in last week arise because they lose track of that process. And perhaps we don't make that overt enough for them to understand what's going on, Chair, you know, across the path.

03:07:01I think we could spend a long time discussing the merits of the two-stage, three-stage approach to consultations in the plan-making process. A very long time. But ultimately, it's the process we're required to go through by government. There is nothing we can do about that. We have to do the issues and options consultation. We have to do the Regulation 18 consultation. we have to do the regulation 19 consultation um and and stuff changes um I don't know if you have anything to add to that mr Freeman I mean I think um it is a long and complicated process I do sympathize with people trying to engage with it and follow the process um I think perhaps there are some lessons to be learned in terms of the different stages of consultation for example at Reg 18 consultation the fact that we had you know first choice second choice sites rejected sites and people took that as read that that's where things were when actually at that stage the sites hadn't been debated by the committee and so I think that's perhaps not helped in terms

03:08:04Of we've then gone to Reg 19 consultation and then people have then seen what's actually gone in and taken as read the sites that were were recommended for inclusion at Reg 18 stage were already agreed and those rejected at that stage wouldn't come back and then they've come back so we perhaps need to look at that when we get to the end of this process if we get to the end of this process in terms of Local Plan in terms of reviewing it to learn from that in terms of future work because I think there are always lessons to be learned through these processes and it's important that we do that and learn from that whether there'll be an opportunity with local government reorganization to apply that learning um I don't know but um it's important that we do that and I can accept that there are some things that we could do better in the future Mr Freeman has used the word that's banned in my meetings, thank you Mr Freeman for bringing the spectre of LGR up

03:08:58Coming into debate then councillors, I have Councillor Mike Howell first thank you, I'm happy to remove officers of recommendation but I do want to say obviously Taylor Wimpy, obviously mentioning their site wanted an uplift in their housing numbers we're just putting a number on it as part of our strategic planning a full planning application can come in with what Taylor wouldn't be want to develop anyway and as such has no impact on us either way we should play safe and it's an 18 the other one mentioned again we've got no danger unfortunately highlighted by Devon highways or the police so best one in the world you know we can only go with the statutory consultees and what they say of the safety concerns they raise or not Hamilton 13 7 and 12 I've got some sympathy for seven but nevertheless we ought to play it safe we've got the numbers we need why make more of a commitment than we actually need in this case so I'm happy to move officers of recommendation as they stand thank you

03:10:02Okay thank you Councillor Howe I need to look for a second of first Colin were you waving at me because you wanted to second it because you wanted to speak OK, I'll come to you in a minute. Constitution, I have to seek to seek a second of first. Peter, you can't second it, but you want to speak. I've seen you. Does anybody else wish to second Councillor Howe's proposal?

03:10:28Councillor Davey, I saw your hand first. Do you wish to speak at that point? No? Okay, thank you. In which case then, I had hands for speakers from councillors faithful. The only thing I can think of is Colin, but it's Brown, and Roy Collins. So in that order, please.

03:10:50Thank you, Chair. Like I said before, there's Sir Michael's Church. you've got public transport and there is the public only public transport on the Northcott area is you've got two buses each go there twice a day one one day a week each one was on a Tuesday and the others on a Saturday regarding the honey 2018 I don't know if you can bring up Google Street scene at all yet but that is horrendous I one so there's places I wouldn't like to walk and going up beyond that road I wouldn't want to walk there beyond where the pavement is that is how horrendous it is is such heavy traffic comes down that road at the top there's two cottages right on the side of the road yeah that's the coming out so we turn right carry on so you can start to see how it's all bears around to the left yeah keep going a bit further yeah and then you see where that car is you've got the two cottages there and then the road disappears around to the left that

03:12:19Is how horrendous the visibility is there I as a non-driver walk a lot of places I wouldn't go further up that road is that horrendous because it's such a tight road and you're getting horrendous great lorries and the buses coming down that road it's you know I don't know how I don't know where the entrance is proposed to go onto that site but that is what people are talking about it's horrendous yeah so I can't I don't know how to get across that unless you go and actually visit the site to see what it's like how horrendous that stretch of road is and where that's another question I should have asked where would the 30 mile an hour speed limit be extended to because you can have to go right beyond the zigzag right up onto the straight stretch before you're going to get sufficient but visibility to because you need a certain distance before you have a 30 mile an hour speed limit you have to be able to see the sign in sufficient

03:13:32Time to reduce to that speed so I don't know I think I'm stopped there okay Thank you, Peter. There was a question there, so we'll come to officers for the answer, please. Through you, Jay, I don't know exactly where the 30 mile an hour speed limit would be extended to. Obviously further up the hill, but how much further up, I couldn't say at this point. I think all I can say is, you know, the police don't have an objection to it in principle.

03:14:06The highway authority are happy in principle. I think it's going to be very hard to uh reject the site on highway safety grounds in the context of those those comments from those that understand these issues far better than I do I'll I'll come out to to bat as well on on that point I I know this road not as well as um the gentleman here who lives close to the site but I I mean I imagine we've all driven this road as councillors um the the entrance to that to the to the site will be before I imagine I I don't think I'm wrong in saying before those two cottages before that bend around to the left which I I mean quite frankly compared to some of the roads that we have in East Devon is perfectly fine um I I I take I take sorry thank you I I I take I take the residents concerns about speeding on on this patch um I I know we have those issues in in a lot

03:15:07Of places in East Devon but um I I mean when I look at this site for me personally my opinion um highway safety doesn't scream me as scream at me as the issue for us to be concerned about here um but but you know that's that's my view feel free to to differ um do any other members uh yes I know we have other members who wish to speak because we had Colin, and then Roy.

03:15:31Councillor Brown. Thank you very much. The only, of all these sites, the only one I've got a problem with is the one at St Michael's, which is 07, I think it is. You know, that site is closer to any amenities that we've approved in East Devon, let alone in Honolton. It's got good bus services. It's less than five minutes' walk to the station. it's almost in the town centre you know it's one that should be left in and if Michael wants to the vice chair wants to add it to his recommendations then I can go along with it otherwise I can't go with his recommendation Just to be clear are you referring specifically to 07 or the other sites as well?

03:16:22Bones are in the St Michael's area. So 07, 12 and 13? Yeah if they remain in I mean it will give us more houses and contract other things as well but they are convenient for the town centre you know the bus services are good the train station is well within walking distance and all those things that that site is closer to a town centre than anything that's been approved by this committee and that's what we want one convenience for people okay thank you Councillor Brown, unless you're proposing that formally as an amendment, that's one for Councillor Howe to reflect on and perhaps we can come back to.

03:17:07Yeah, I'll propose that for an amendment. Okay, so we'll do it formally then. So Councillor Brown has proposed an amendment to Councillor Howe's proposal, which is that sites HONI 7, HONI 12 and HONI 13 are kept in the plan in contravention of officers' recommendation. I need to look for a seconder for that amendment, unless Councillor Howe wants to accept it outright. I think we need to debate some.

03:17:32Okay. So, Councillor Blakey, are you seconding? I am. Thank you. Do you wish to speak at that point? No need. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Colin, for that amendment. So, just for members' clarity, procedurally, we are now debating the amendment to the proposal. so members who've already spoken can speak again on the subject of that amendment. Roy, do you want to speak on that amendment or more broadly?

03:18:00Okay, Councillor Collins, please. Thank you, Chair. Now, you've heard me rant on about the loss of farmland. This is quite good land, but it's got public footpaths running through it and that means because it's near the houses there's a tremendous lot of dogs go through there with their owners and they mess in the fields and contaminate the grass and the farmer finds it very difficult to mow for silage or hay because the grass is contaminated with dog mess.

03:18:52Also, he cannot put cattle in there for the same reasons. Cattle tend to get excited when people and dogs come in and they walk behind the public and sometimes the public are stupid and they'll run away or hang on to their dogs. and the farmer's cousin he had landed Sidbury and he was prosecuted because he had cattle in the field and one of the cattle attacked the dog walker and he got fine thousands and had suspended prison sentence for that. So there's a real problem there and In this exception, I would recommend that you build some houses there.

03:19:50Now, my son rents Ball Hill, which has been referred to. I've been up there a few times looking at cattle, checking the stock. And that is the only place where this site is visible from. You can't see it when you come down over Marlborough's Hill. or any other area, really, because it's well-screened. Now, if you were to plant trees on the southern end of that site, particularly Populars, which grow up a tremendous height, I'm sure that would be well-screened, and I'm happy for the site to be built on.

03:20:34Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor Collins. Do other members wish to speak on the amendment by Councillor Brown?

03:20:42Councillor Davey, please. I think there's a bit of a problem maybe with taking 7, 12 and 13 together, and maybe we need to look at them separately. I know the office of view is that the proximity of all of these sites to St. Michael's Church is the issue. I mean, looking on Google Maps, it seems to me that there's quite a thick hedge and trees between Honeo 7 and the church.

03:21:21So I'm wondering whether we could consider some of these separately and whether the impact on the heritage asset can be mitigated for at least some of them. I think 13, yeah, the landscape impact is pretty high, but it's less for seven. And as Councillor Brown has pointed out, it's a very sustainable site. Mr. Freeman, could you take us through in your and an officer's view, please, how the heritage and landscape impacts differ between the three sites in that area, please?

03:21:56I think that'll help inform the debate. Yes, so they end up being quite a small one here, didn't they? but um okay so I think so this is honey's where's my point sorry my point is not working but anyway

03:22:35Um the one on the the top of the screen is is honey 07 and I think that's the most sensitive one in terms of the historic environment so you'll see in the report historic england saying that that should be left as open space due to the impact on the heritage assets which are largely to the um east of there um looking on street view I can see that um the adjacent cottage is right on the road so the fact that that's on the road and quite prominent from the road means that this site as you come around the corner is sort of what you see just before you're seeing the listed building and we can go to street view in a moment at the time um so I'm concerned about the impact on the setting of of the listed buildings both the church the gates and the and the cottage of bringing that forward but it's mainly in terms of the historic environment in terms of of that particular parcel I think it's it's only 12 to the south of there which is more sensitive in terms of the landscape

03:23:34So that's where uh if we go to the other slide you end up with this sort of finger sticking out so the further you go away from uh the existing built form of the town um so the left-hand side of the picture the more prominent it's going to be in terms of of the landscape um and likewise in terms of 13 on on the other side um I think where I'm struggling is given what we said about numbers in terms of ghgd 39 a and b I haven't heard much discussion of that but if the numbers that we're requiring at Honiton can be made up there I don't I'm struggling to see why we would have the impact on the listed buildings here and how we would justify that to to the examination of the plan um given that we should in principle be avoiding those kind of impacts I appreciate we've looked at some similar cases in Exmouth where there's been impacts on listed buildings and we've looked at how we can mitigate those in terms of

03:24:38Positioning of open space landscaping and things but that was to ensure that we're maximizing the numbers at our biggest town most sustainable location and retaining the numbers that are in the plan already here we can make up the numbers that we lose by taking these out off from another site that's less sensitive where and you've heard from the applicant's agent where potentially you could have even higher numbers than we're now proposing in this plan coming forward so I think it's quite hard to justify that impact on the heritage asset of honey 07 and in terms of 12 and 13 on on the national landscape in that that context um but I'll leave it to members to debate it may be that you don't feel the increased numbers on 39a and 39b are acceptable in which case that argument changes but if you feel that they are I question why we we would need to retain honey 7 12 and 13 given their impacts so you have uh officers advice members uh which is standing by

03:25:42Their original position who else wishes to speak Councillor Hayward thank you chair um I suppose this comes back to the point that was raised earlier is this just about making numbers stack up or is it about having a strategic view um and that's again that's the challenge we face bit of a paradox really um when I saw this one um and I I empathize with what Councillor Brown says because on balance it looks to be if and I I could probably do away with Honiton 12 because that's extending it a little bit far too south but Honiton 7 and 13 combined um I'm sure some residential dwellings could be done there that are in keeping with that heritage asset um they're not immediately on its doorstep um and I have some again some sympathy with the which is rare for me with the um the developer and the agent as to why they think it could work um you know we we are there's a proliferation of listed buildings and wherever we build in east evan we're probably going

03:26:47To come up against one or two of them um and if this works for Honiton then I think actually this is a win-win for our Local Plan because you could put some sensitive dwelling in a good location again I've heard opposition to honerton 18 I travel that road routinely just to get to this building not at least to get to to Cranbrook every time I drive there at least once a week so I know the challenges of that particular road certainly coming out from the um what I always refer to as the pink house I think it's the white house now on that junction but the highways agency and the police have not put forward any objections to it um we discussed at length gh39 when we went through the options and the allocations so again I can understand why the developer and thank you for the speaker wants to put more houses there why would they not it's there it's a profit element thing for them um but I think you could actually put both of these in which I appreciate is a

03:27:46Second amendment because I wouldn't want to keep 12 12 in so that goes against the proposal that's been made or the amendment has been made um but I could I could myself live with um 7 and 13 being retained plus 18 being included and I hear what's being said about the consultation exercise and the increased allocation to GH39A and B because it is a win-win. And when it comes, and these are ultimately just, it's a plan, it would have to come to the planning committee to decide.

03:28:27And if the planning committee felt that the proposals for the design, the style, the density were egregious and out of keeping with a heritage asset, then they'd throw it out. but that's for the developer to source that's the developer to think about and if we think about our neighbours in Dorset how Poundbury and we've had many discussions about Poundbury in this committee have done it that's for them to decide make it fit a heritage asset make it work make it make it conducive and fit in with the landscape Councillor Collins says plant some trees at the bottom of here to screen the views you can do all sorts that that's conditionality from a planning committee this is strategic planning what works for Honiton and to a greater extent what works for the greater East Devon planning area so I'm a bit stuck really because I was going to abstain on the initial recommendation to remove all of these sites I've now got an amendment to keep three these three in which I'm going to have to vote against again and and I don't really want

03:29:39To extend this too much but I'm wondering whether whether the proposer and seconder might tweak their amendment to remove 12 and keep 7 and 13 in as Councillor Blakey said earlier as a workable compromise and do the other things suggested within the recommendations thank you jay you'd lot to like to test me procedurally don't you yes you can propose to amend an amendment yes so I think that's a proposal from Councillor Hayward to amend the amendment that's on the table to remove bringing honey 12 back members of the public have their heads in their hands my feelings are with you in spirit Councillor Brown are you are you minded to take that amendment to your amendment Colin says no okay in which case okay great so Councillor Hayward is proposing an amendment to the amendment which Councillor Howe has now seconded which means we're gonna end up in terminal loop mr. Freeman what do you make of this latest suggestion please help oh well you know I stand by my previous comments really I mean I think I I I wouldn't include any of them if particularly if

03:31:08You're increasing the numbers on 39a and b um I I tend to agree that honey 07 is quite well located in terms of the town and I think this was the discussion that we originally had when members wanted to put them in but officers recommendation has always been not to include any of these three sites from from the start on the O7 is is the one that has the greatest impact on it's on a point of order the document the options document the allocation seven and seven and thirteen were included as yes for allocations originally in the document that's provided with this is the um I don't think that's strictly a public selection report I don't think that's strictly a point of order but we'll ask officers just just because the original recommendation well apologies if I'm wrong that wasn't my my recollection we can check um but yeah I mean it just comes back to justifying that impact I think on the setting of the list of buildings in the context of of that wider issue of argument about numbers elsewhere doesn't apply if you're

03:32:20Making up the numbers on 39a and b um I guess the other thing to say is uh just look at the numbers specifically I think it's 30 on 07 and was it 10 on 13 just whether or not if you are going with those sites whether you're comfortable with those numbers 30 seems quite a lot on 07 given the comments from historic england about open space may want to consider a lower number uh to ensure that there's an adequate buffer to the list of building if you are going with that?

03:32:56I think we've probably debated this out now. So I'm going to take us to a vote on the sequence of amendments and then we'll see where we get to as to whether we need to decide what number is going to go in the final proposal that we vote on. So the first vote we're going to take, members, is on the amendment to the amendment to remove HONI 12 from Collins suggested re-inclusion of 7, 12 and 13 so that's the first amendment that we're going to take is everybody clear what they're voting on I hear no objections so all those in favour please of taking HONI 12 out those sorry I count four those against please I count three and those abstaining proudly sitting on the fence on this occasion three. So I think that is carried then.

03:34:00Yep. So HONI 12 is removed from Collins' original amendment. So the substantive amendment we're now voting on is whether to amend Councillor Howe's original recommendation of the proposals as set out by officers in the report. Is everybody clear what we are voting on? I'm afraid we're inside committee now, Councillor Collins. is everybody clear what we're voting on please Councillor Blakey okay so the original recommendation set out by Councillor Howe when we started this debate was to propose officers recommendations as they are in the report in full Colin has then proposed altering that to include keeping the three Honiton sites we have just voted to change Collins' amendment to keep only 7 and 13. So the amendment we're considering now is whether to change Councillor Howe's original proposal so that we are voting on officers' recommendations in the report with the exception of keeping 7 and 13.

03:35:12Is everybody clear? That's not fair, Chairman. You told me I could speak on the amendment only just now. Councillor Collins, we're still voting on the amendment. When we get back to the substantive proposal I will come back to you thank you is everybody clear what we are voting on no you're not you're not voting on the officer's recommendations now you're voting on whether or not you want to amend mike's original proposal so that it says keep seven and 13 good all those in favor please account six those against please account none and those abstaining please account four so the amendment is carried which means we are now back to the original recommendations except we're now keeping voting on whether or not we also keep seven and thirteen that's the substantive proposal that is now on the table we're back to the first level of inception um which means Councillor Collins uh you can now make your comments on uh officer's recommendations please it includes retaining 18 and the 239 sites yes thank you I have a letter from the police

03:36:57Dated the 25th of july what the agent is telling you is not correct the police are not allowed to give an opinion on planning applications that's what the letter says I can read out the paragraph here I reply in early december outlining that I had no objection to the signs being moved and I support a reduction in speed as this makes the road safe I have made no comment on whether I do or do not support the housing scheme it would be inappropriate for me to do so That is from MPC592 Welsh. That is the police dated the 25th of July. So to say that the police support Honey 18 is very wrong.

03:38:00I also have a similar letter from National Highways, which is basically saying the same sort of thing, that they cannot determine whether it's suitable or not. But being born on the A35 and been there all my life, and my family been there since 1849, I can tell you that lots of people have been killed on the short stretch of the A35 over the years. I could rattle off a number of facilities there.

03:38:43My wife, she wrote the car off just coming out from Pine Park. She's been born in Hornetton all her life. She wrote the car off. Councillor Bethany Collins' father, he actually lived in Pine Grove. He wrote his car off there at Pine Park Junction, and there are accidents there on a regular basis. the road cannot be made safe in my opinion unless the bends are straightened out in 2011 Taylor Wimpy wished to develop this land they drawed up plans of Barton what's their agent Barton Wilmore, they drawed up plans to put a roundabout at Springfield Corner. Obviously the cost and everything, they abandoned the scheme. That particular scheme shone a road from Springfield Corner going down to Norquit Hill and a bridge over the are we lying? Now Taylor Wimpy stayed with Middle Norcott Farm and Perry Hale Nursery and that's what 39B and 39A is about. 39 and 39B should not be developed because they're near, you've got the Dundon Hill, which is owned by the National Trust in the National Landscapes, looks directly into that site. Also, last week, I met with network rail engineers.

03:41:05They're concerned about the railway line. There have been lots of landslips, And they looked at the bridge, and they are going to pass on these plans to Network Rail's planning department. I cannot understand why you've not consulted Network Rail when we've got the major Exeter to Waterloo railway line and the railway tunnel. the railway tunnel has had a tremendous amount of money spent on it because they've had water problems up there and landslips why haven't they been consulted that's the question they have Councillor Collins thank you is that everything Councillor Collins sorry I was pausing well I could go on Honey 38 if you finish what you were going to say 39 they were flooded bad in 1968 when we had the floods, houses were flood there, the water went down from the A35 and came back the roads they all came back and they washed that site out, I know it well because I worked for the farmer down there in 1968 when we had the floods now I think that you're very wrong to build houses

03:42:45Out there, you're making Honiton into a real sort of sausage and with Honiton 18 the site is prominent so when you come down the A35 the first thing people are going to see is a large housing development when the motto for Honiton has been for a long time now, the town in the country when you're taking the countryside away.

03:43:12Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Collins. Without wishing to comment extensively, the first thing that you do see coming down that road is already a housing estate. I appreciate you might see it a bit sooner, but it's not like the rest of Honiton isn't there in the background in that view. Anyway, does anybody else wish to speak on the substantive proposal that's in front of us? I think we have discussed this quite extensively, so I'm not minded to spend significant additional time on it but if anybody who hasn't spoken wishes to do so. Okay I see no further hands in which case then we're going to move to a vote on the substantive proposal that is in front of us as a reminder members that proposal is the original recommendations that officers made which are set out in the report with the exception that the proposal is now to retain the allocations on HONI 7 and HONI 13. Is everybody clear upon what we are voting? I'm pausing to make sure. Okay, in which case then, can I ask members please all those in

03:44:36Favour of that substantive recommendation? I count six, can I ask for those against please? and can I ask for those abstaining please in which case I believe that means the proposal is carried. Conscious of the time, we have been going now for another hour and three, well hour and a half we're going to take five minutes before we plough through and do Feniton and Wimple. I'm sorry folks but I'm going to lose the will to live if I have to sit in this chair for another five more minutes at the moment. So we're going to take five minutes. We will return at 10 to 2 and go through Feniton and Wimple. Oh, and sorry, also Seton before we take lunch. Thank you.

03:55:25Okay. Thank you, members. We're going to resume and Mr. Freeman is going to break the record for the fastest report ever presented to Strategic Planning Committee as we discuss Seton. Aren't you, Mr. Freeman? Yes. Thank you, Chair. So there's just one site of note at Seaton was seat 13A land rest of Axview Road so this was a residential development of 39 dwellings members may recall from site assessment there were some archaeological issues with this site which sits just north of former Roman settlements and Honeyditch's scheduled monument this is just to note that there's further work needed in terms of the archaeological remains on the site as per some of the previous sites referred to with trenches needed to be dug to understand what's under the site and so we can't we don't have that information as yet so in the meantime the recommendation is to continue to allocate seat 13a pending that information thank you chair thank you mr. Freeman I'm going to propose from the chair that we accept that officer recommendation on this site does anybody wish to speak no thank

03:56:36You very much members all those in favor of that proposal please one two three four five six those against please and those abstaining please one thank you very much that is carried uh which brings us to I'm not sure if that did break the record but it was pretty close if it didn't um which brings us to then feniton uh mr Freeman please uh thank you chair so uh two sites at Fenonton to be considered. The first land adjacent to Beechwood was an allocation adjacent to the existing built form of the settlement. There was strong opposition from residents and parish council citing issues of flooding, sewage capacity, traffic and sustainability. However the allocation performed well in our assessment at the time in relation to its relationship to the village, services and facilities there, access to public transport etc. The thing that's changed I suppose is the granting of permission on appeal for land at Colstocks Road which was one of the rejected sites at the initial site assessment stage.

03:57:44We defended a reason for refusal around the scale of growth at Fenerton as part of that appeal and raised concerns about how the settlement would be accommodating significantly more homes than other tier four settlements within the settlement hierarchy in fact if we retain this allocation alongside the other allocation that was made that now has consent and the the obviously the sites that has been consented on appeal there would be 206 dwellings coming forward at Fenerton which is is greater than the other tier four settlements and so that's factored into our reassessments however as members will note that those that have read the inspector's decision on this case the inspector concluded that allowing the coal stock site did not undermine the spatial strategy with regard to feniton and the quantum of growth planned would be appropriate so while that's not the case we argued as as officers and we do obviously have to have regard to that inspector's decision in our decision making and so we feel having regard to that decision that it's still appropriate to accommodate FENI 08 as an allocation within the Local Plan.

03:59:00So we're not proposing to delete that allocation. The other site at Fennerton for consideration is Ottery underscore 20 lands to south east of Bridge Cottages. So members might recall this was a site for employment spaces within the village, which at the time I think was seen as making housing allocations in the village and the village as a whole more sustainable given the high amounts of out commuting that we see at the moment nearly three times as many residents are available to work in the settlement than there are jobs within Fenerton making it a commuter settlement largely so we think we still think that employment development on this site is appropriate and consistent with the spatial strategy and will help to increase self-containment of Fenerton as a settlement it is however a comparatively large site as an employment allocation in this location.

03:59:56And we did look at whether or not that should be reduced to a phased development so that only phase one, the northly two hectares of the sites would be allocated. But overall, we feel the certainty or clarity of the wider site coming forward probably increases its viability and the willingness of landowners to invest in its development and bringing it forward. So while our expectation would be that it's probably unlikely that the whole site would come forward during the planned period and it would be more of a phased delivery we think allocating the whole site is probably increases its chances of of being delivered overall um and improves its viability so the recommendation is not to delete Ottery 20.

04:00:38So overall the recommendations are to make no changes in terms of the allocations at feniton and retain those two allocations thank you thank you mr Freeman I have one public speaker who is named either Ollie Ansell or Alan Williams but I do not know which and the suspense is killing me it's Ollie Ansell thank you chair members and I'm speaking today on behalf of the landowners and the applicant support proposed allocation of venue 8 within the emerging East Devon Liberal Plan and we have a planning application currently submitted and being considered by officers to bring forward the proposed allocation and this has been submitted in line with the allocation, or the emerging allocation, sorry, at 20 dwellings, 60 dwellings, but with a higher level of affordable housing provision, totaling 50%. Consultee comments have raised no technical objections or issues with the development of the site. In fact, we've been in discussions with the Council's engineering project management team to agree a suitable outfall for surface water and how the development can reduce the flooding issues faced further west of the site. The proposals

04:01:47Includes a sustainable drainage system which will not only address the runoff from the development itself but actively reduce the volume of water flowing off the site so in short the development will not simply mitigate its own impact but will provide a wider benefit to the community. I'd also highlight the conclusions reached at the recent appeal in Feniton specifically referencing Fenny 08 in that case the planning inspector made it very clear that the scale of development proposed for Feniton including the allowed site and the emerging allocation represented an acceptable level of growth for the village, with the inspector noting that the percentage growth for Fennington wouldn't be substantially greater than a number of other Tier 4 settlements.

04:02:27The principle of development in the location has therefore been tested and found sound through the rigour of the approval process. In conclusion, Chair, members, FENNY 08 is precisely the type of site that should be supported through the Local Plan. It provides valuable housing to meet the identified requirements of the emerging Local Plan, brings wider benefits including reduced surface runoff and the application submitted has highlighted no constraints to the site's development. For those reasons I urge members to continue to support the allocation of Feniton. Thank you. Thank you [member of the public]. We have no further public speakers registered for Feniton so we come straight to members outside of committee. I will start with Councillor Collins quickly please thank you chair I would just like to remind the committee that the land around fenerton where these developments are proposed is either grade one or grade two agricultural land it would grow good market garden crops thank you thank you Councillor Collins Councillor Faithfull thank you chair question when you're talking about gh ed 20 so 38 that was a reference to any 11 was that part

04:03:54Of the group in the report is saying about that is that correct because it's Fenny 11 is the site that went through appeal, not G-H-E-D-38, unless G-H-E-D-38 includes the other two sites as well. But anyway, also, was I right listening to Mr Freeman describing Autry 20 as employment? My understanding is it's a mixed-use site.

04:04:49Just on the first point, yeah, GHED 38 encompassed FENI 09 and FENI 11 originally. So that's what the report's referring to in terms of that amalgamation. So, yes, the appeal decision basically granted part of what was a GHED 38 shown as FENI 11 on that plan. I think it was just the lower part of FENI 11. um in terms of Ottery 20 I think it is an allocation for employment purposes only isn't it uh so apologies looking at the slide the slide is is wrong I think we did at one point propose it oh no I'm looking at wrong signer yeah uh so yeah it's an employment allocation only I think there was some discussion at one stage about it being a mixed use allocation but the allocation that's in the Reg 19 plan was for employment only any further questions okay comments I thought there might be peter well as we've already got any 11 you're saying that because I'm well I was under the impression that this was for housing but if it's not

04:06:05I'm struggling to see why we need to put more houses in if we've already got the houses we need um I mean I think the issue is we've already allocated in the Reg 19 plan fennie 08 and while we perhaps didn't allocate more sites at Fenerton because of concerns about the scale of growth at Fenerton, the inspector's decision is a material consideration. The inspector's decision is a higher authority and the inspector didn't raise concerns about the quantum of growth overall and the impact of FENI 11 and FENI 08 and the other site we allocated at Fenerton, which I think was FENI 05.

04:06:56So having regard to that inspector's decision it's difficult to see why we would now remove any 08 from the plan particularly given the fact that we need we need the numbers uh as we previously said and I think in the case with fennerton was there a lot of uh sites that in themselves were acceptable it was the issue was always about the scale of growth at fennerton and what was acceptable um so giving weight to the inspector's decision I don't see any reason to change um in terms of lottery 20 I think arguably the fact that we've got higher numbers of homes now coming forward at fennerton before almost reinforces the argument for an employment site um to to ensure try and deliver greater levels of self-containment and employment within the settlement and reduce out commuting um so I think that the two decisions go hand in hand really or recommendations thank you [member of the public] not sensing any great desire to debate the recommendations that are in the report from committee so I'm going to move from

04:08:00The chair that we accept officers recommendations as set out in the paper does anybody wish to speak Councillor Bailey second that thank you Brian you didn't need to but thank you anybody else wish to speak any further nope okay thank you very much then members so the proposal in front of you is officers recommendations as set out in the report all those in favor please that is carried unanimously thank you members uh which brings us and thank you for waiting mr coles mr shore uh Councillor Yarwood uh to wimple mr Freeman uh thank you chair so um two sites at wimple uh to be reconsidered uh so uh whim 08a land west of bramley gardens uh was allocated in Reg 19 plan for 50 homes in a community orchard um this was considered to be consistent with the spatial strategy and scales of growth at tier four settlements uh representations raised a number of concerns in relation to the green wedge flood risk impact on wildlife and lack of safe pedestrian access and procedural issues in the allocation I think the report focuses mainly on

04:09:16The flood risk issues there's a level two strategic flood risk assessment shows that part of the sites at risk from fluvial surface and groundwater flooding in some scenarios that's up to 20 percent of the sites being affected by flooding but we're confident the remainder of the sites can accommodate the scale of growth envisaged in the allocation obviously further flood modeling will be needed and we'll need to come forward through any planning application process but we feel we have the level of information needed to make an allocation at this stage I think in terms of the green wedge this was a slight incursion into the green wedge which is unfortunate but the green wedge is not a moratorium on on development it's about whether that development impacts on its purposes and would lead to settlement coalescence which I think the committee previously concluded that this wouldn't materially impact on those issues and obviously elsewhere we've ended up having to allocate sites within more sensitive locations such as national landscapes in order to meet housing numbers and requirement figures so I would

04:10:24Argue an incursion into green wedge is is less significant than than those cases in terms of that issue the other site is WIM 11 again similar issues being raised again in terms of flood risk we feel that the sites can accommodate the scale of growth despite the limitations in terms of flood risk there are some potential impacts on nearby listed building and these are noted we're suggesting improvements to policy wording to reflect the comments from historic England with regard to listed buildings but the land's not designated as land of local importance or other designations so we think those constraints can again be overcome so you see on pages 72 and 73 there's some revised wording in relation to these two sites particularly picking up on the flood risk issues and as I say the historic environment issues that I've mentioned subject to those changes The recommendation is to retain both WIM 08A and WIM 11 as allocations in the plan.

04:11:24Thank you. Okay, thank you, Mr. Freeman. We will then come to our public speakers, and I'll start with [member of the public], please.

04:11:53Thank you very much. Members, so this is WIM 08A and 11. 11. It's absolutely right that Wimple should take some fair share of development. It's a really sustainable settlement and as acknowledged by everybody last time around, there's an affordable housing need. In the usual way, a variety of technical surveys and assessments will be undertaken really on both sites to demonstrate things like safe walking routes to the village centre, flood risk, ecology, BNG, landscape effects, and so on and so forth.

04:12:29And they will consider all sorts of things like the green wedge and so on and so forth. Flood risk is relatively straightforward for both sites. Really, new homes will just be kept outside of the flood zone. And sustainable drainage systems will manage surface water and create betterment in terms of runoff compared to the existing greenfield status of the sites. On 08A, we actually see that flow path as a real opportunity to create a highly attractive corridor, green and blue infrastructure, and really help to help support placemaking and master planning.

04:13:10So this is an opportunity, not a constraint. Members, both sites are owned by local landowners. They want to do things properly. they've given a commitment to us that they will engage fully and meaningfully with the parish council and the local community if and when the time comes and they want to talk on 08a about recreating the community orchard about how it can provide safe connections through to the village center in the north and how the new homes etc can deliver wider community benefits just like Axminster archaeology can actually create a benefit if there is any and we don't know that there is and so really members our clients support the change in wording for both sites and we commend the report and recommendation undertaken by your officers thanks very much thank you Mr Coles isn't it remarkable when we have public speakers that when they agree with us our reports are great and when they don't they're terrible um it's you know it's it's it's an amazing coincidence I find um mr mr mr justin

04:14:29Short please so I'm going to be the bad person um so I acknowledge the challenges you've all got creating this plan as highlighted by Councillor Hayward earlier and actually I agree with them so I was looking for a reason to try and sort of help you along with uh refusing or declining part of Wimple08. My question was going to be, but Mr. Freeman has already essentially answered it, was whether or not, with a simple yes-no answer, whether Green Wedge provides a sort of a moratorium on planning and housing development in the area. I was hopeful that you might say it did. Clearly, I wasn't really expecting that. But I think the people of Wimple certainly who sort of sits over the site of Wimple 08 Alpha were certainly under the impression that this that the Green Wedge would provide protection against coalescence with Cranbrook and therefore and I appreciate what you just said Mr Freeman in your initial speech but I would sort of appeal to the councillors to say that albeit a small coalescence it is in principle

04:15:46You have broken the sort of the idea that Green Wedge does protect against coalescence. So I suppose if there was a question I had is where in the future does this stop? Do we have any assurances or can we have any assurances that if you continue with the development of Wimple 08, may that expand further in the future? Just to be clear, my pitch is that you declined Wimple 08, but if you don't what are the chances that windpool 08 could be developed further noting that windpool 08 bravo is also sort of now designated on the list that's my question thank you um so I can't really say what might happen in the future in terms of the head development is obviously future plans you know there's no plans in in terms of this Local Plan beyond winmo 8a in that location but what might happen in future local plans I couldn't say and what planning applications might come forward in the meantime and how we would react to those um the only reassurance I can give you is obviously there retains a substantial green wedge between wimple and

04:17:05Cranbrook and I think it's quite clear we wouldn't want to see settlement coalescence between wimple and Cranbrook um that that green wedge is there to prevent that from happening um as to how much we might allow future incursions into that area it's difficult to say because as you've probably seen if you've been listening to the discussion so far this morning there are significant constraints in other parts of the district and in terms of constraining where growth can take place um so I would wouldn't want to say never say never in terms of future development into that green wedge but we certainly wouldn't want to see settlement coalescence between Wimple and Cranbrook I don't think anyone would support that and I acknowledge and understand your point I suppose on behalf of myself and the people I know who are interested in this of Wimple that a small erosion of that sort of green wedge is setting in principle the idea that you can erode into the green wedge and if you have that on both sides of both Cranbrook and

04:18:12Wimple then it wouldn't take many iterations of this uh over many years noting that this is a 15 year plan but subsequently there'll be further 15 year plans 20 year plans etc that you know fast forward 100 years time we could be looking at coalescence so I suppose my appeal is are we accepting of that coalescence albeit very small but if we accept it now we've set a precedent for the future that's my point I mean the only thing I can really say in response is technically there's no such thing as a precedent in in planning um I'd also say that the the policy in terms of um green wedges is is quite clear it's not a moratorium it's about identifying an area where development uh could lead to settlement coalescence or issues in terms of uh the separate identity of adjoining settlements um and as we would not want to see development in that area that would undermine that as a principle um and and our view is that this development at whim 08a wouldn't do that that's a subjective judgment though um but those principles stand

04:19:25I think moving forward as well I think the other thing I'd highlight there just to add to mr Freeman's response um if you look at the policies map in the Cranbrook plan um the eastern edge of of that plan is quite a substantive area of allocated green space there's a very definite um and I think I'll be right in saying intentional end to the eastern expansion of Cranbrook um so short of somebody deciding that Wimple needs to double in size to the south and west um I I think further expansion further coalescence in that direction is quite unlikely um I also might have a proposal possibly I couldn't possibly be predetermined that might come up in a minute which will help persuade some of those concerns as well but thank you [member of the public]. We come then to Councillor Yarwood last but by very no means least on our list of venerated public speakers for the day. Right well I'll acknowledge the remarks like Justin did that were made by Councillor Hayward and I'd just like to say how very grateful I am that I'm not a district Councillor Making these

04:20:35Very difficult decisions. But as a parish councillor, I have to make representation on behalf of the residents of Wimple. The representations previously made by the residents stand, and you have those on record, and to some extent I think are vindicated by the reports provided by officers in Paris 12.5 and 12.10 relating to the development within Wimple. Within the report note is made of issues around pedestrian safety. I'd like to remind this committee that pedestrian safety is a huge concern currently in Wimple and we are at the moment and have set up a speed watch initiative because of concerns about exit and entry into the village by and large.

04:21:26We have at least four or five major pinch points where traffic narrows down to a single lane and where there are no existing pedestrian footways. The total allocation of 83 homes into the village, and I'm not talking about the specific sites here, at a conservative estimate, will likely add probably around 1.5 vehicles per household, adding in another 124 vehicles into the regular traffic of the village.

04:22:08So one of the questions I would like to ask on behalf of our residents is, how are you going to mitigate against further increases in the lack of pedestrian safety in our village? And how are you going to put footpaths in place where we've already only got single lane traffic? um in 1995 and I know this is ancient history uh Devon County Council rejected um wimple 11 is that the old cricket field on the grounds of road safety and another question I have is what has changed to make that safe now where it wasn't deemed safe before um the flooding issue of course is a concern you've already mentioned that that will be mitigated but one of our questions from the village is how will hard landscaping which is inevitable in developing houses and parking not add to the flooding risk. Finally Mr Freeman mentioned earlier that a phrase you mentioned the market could not sustain that kind of housing. What kind of housing might be sustained in Wimple. A recent survey suggested that those required were

04:23:26Affordable housing and accessible housing. Those are the sorts of things that the residents would like to see in Wimple. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Yarwood, could you switch the microphone off, please? Thank you. Mr Freeman, a couple of questions there, I think, for you before we come to committee yes thank you chair I mean I think this is a problem that arises in a lot of villages um in in the district in terms of the lack of footpaths um and this has came up a lot I think when we were going through the sites particularly the tier four settlements um and it is it's difficult to see how you can put footpaths in retrospectively where you've got relatively narrow Devon Lanes often with Devon Bank to address that but I think the view that we've come to and Devon County as a highway authority have often come to in these circumstances is that often people are quite willing to walk along Devon Lanes and vehicle speeds generally within villages mean that's not necessarily dangerous and so

04:24:40Within a lot of the tier four settlements I think we've got allocations that that will rely on people walking um on what effectively becomes a shared surface through the village uh to access services and facilities and I think it's that change in approach is what's changed since um previous plans um you know in terms of new design uh in terms of road layouts the county are often endorsing shared surfaces on new developments and not having such defined delineation between motorized traffic and pedestrians and cyclists and having shared surfaces that naturally shows slows down the vehicular traffic um so I appreciate that's slightly different when it's designed in but I think some of the principles are applicable in in existing settlements um I think there's also an element of of of simply that um you know I think the committee's previously discussed how you know all settlements need to take their share of the growth and this is to some extent wimple's share of that um it's it's issues that arise in a lot of our tier four

04:25:50Settlements and wimple's no different in that that sense um in terms of hard landscaping I mean even hard landscaping can be permeable or indeed be sustainable drainage systems to accommodate those flows and manage those on the site and discharge them appropriately so I don't see that that that's necessarily something that can't be overcome in terms of the design and layout of the development on the site in terms of what kind of development could be sustained in wimple I think This is quite different from what I was saying earlier in terms of having multiple new communities delivering a similar product in that wider area.

04:26:30This is obviously in a village location. You would expect it to be appealing to a different market and different kind of product. But I understand Wimple's developing a neighbourhood plan. And there's potential opportunities through the plans, through policies within the neighbourhood plan to shape and influence the type of housing that comes through in the village, even on an allocated site. and obviously we would hope through the policies in this plan to deliver affordable housing and housing types that help to meet local needs thank you okay thank you mr Freeman does anybody have any questions to ask mr Freeman before we come to debate okay silence uh does anybody wish to speak before I do okay fine um I'm going to limit my comments to wimple 08 make a proposal and ask for a vote and then I will leave so the committee can discuss WIMP 11 in my absence, if that's all right with you, Mr Hunter.

04:27:31Okay, thank you. I have a huge amount of sympathy with the folks who live next to this site, particularly insofar as they thought that the green wedge was permanent protection against any development occurring there. I can't account for where that view has come from, certainly not from me. I appreciate this is an incursion into the green wedge it's a significantly lesser incursion into the green wedge uh than the reduction that that was proposed 18 months or so ago um which we fought against and sought a reversal on um I I I can't in good faith propose that we take this site out as I know a lot of people in the village would like me to do um I think that would be uh rank hypocrisy frankly for me um in any capacity given the things that I've said previously and on other sites um I think less than um 20 percent somewhere in the region of 15 to 18 percent growth in in the village when you compare it to um what other villages have have had to sustain um is is frankly wimple doing its

04:28:41Bit um and as as others have mentioned you know we haven't seen meaningful numbers of affordable housing coming forward in the village save the sort of eight or so that came in the development at Haberton Close at the top of the hill over which Grove Road traverses. We haven't seen significant numbers of affordable housing in the village for at least as long as I have lived there which is getting on now for two decades since I and my family moved in. With that said I recognise there are significant concerns about coalescence with Cranbrook and I personally have concerns about the number that we reached a Strategic Planning Committee of 50 dwellings on the sort of subset of 08 which we concluded last time I think after further review that is too many for a site of this size and for the character of Wimple particularly in light of the conclusions in the stage 2 strategic flood risk assessment that are before us today. I therefore have a proposal to amend the policy wording, which I'm hoping won't

04:29:48Upset Mr. Freeman too much. But firstly, in recognition of that issue around the green wedge, I'd like to propose that wording is introduced into the policy to the effect that development on the site must not breach the ridgeline to the west, which is the sort of the physical feature that visually separates quite definitively Cranbrook from Wimple. Once you're past that ridge you can see Cranbrook. So I'd like to propose that amendment and I'd also like to propose reducing the housing number on the site from 50 to 30. I think that's proportionate given that the constraints that the site has and I think it's reasonable given its size and in comparison with Wimple 11 so that's my proposal in front of committee I'm not going to propose it from the chair because I think that would be an abuse of authority so I will look for a seconder at that point please. Councillor Bailey thank you do you wish to speak? No? Okay thank you very much Officers do you have anything that you want to say

04:30:59In response to that? Well I could do some clarification to what we mean by the ridge line and just looking at the levels and perhaps we go to HDMI 2 and I can switch across to Max PC but it would just be good to be clear about what we mean because it's a relatively level site there's not an obvious ridge necessarily just so that everybody's clear so put the microphone on and I'll look to colleagues to help if I get any of this wrong but you can see sort of There's a first hedge line there in the foreground of the site which runs, that sort of runs roughly speaking halfway, maybe a third of the way, going east to west across the site.

04:31:47So that's sort of in the middle of the site. If you go to the hedgerow beyond that, you can see that that runs from this perspective effectively along the skyline there. Yep, you've got it, Matt, where that cursor is going. That hedge runs all the way along the western boundary of the site, which I appreciate I'm pointing out on my screen so that Mr. Freeman can see it.

04:32:10But that's that hedgerow and then ends up coming round there. Beyond that, once you get over that hill, my understanding is you can see Cranbrook from there. My intention thus is that whatever happens on this site doesn't breach that ridgeline or at the very least is screened as much as humanly possible. so that there is no visual relationship between the villages of Wimple and the town of Cranbrook, because fundamentally my view is the green wedge is there to prevent visual coalescence, and as soon as you have breached that rid line, you've got visual coalescence.

04:32:48I think that's a reasonable proposal. Okay, so the concern is rooftops and ridgelines being visible above that rather than development coming up to it. Okay.

04:33:00Thank you are you happy with my proposal as far as you can be okay thanks Ed good it's contrary to your recommendation yes I appreciate but I don't think it materially changes a huge amount I think the site area can't cope with 50 if you're going to remain in character with uh wimple um and I think it's if anything reinforcing the impacts uh of the green wedge policy that's elsewhere in the plan um so I think it's consistent I don't think it necessarily um I certainly don't think it's a material change um that would approach whatever the guidance in whichever paragraph it is in the ppg is um does anybody wish to speak please Councillor Blakey Yeah, thank you, Chair. Essentially, to support what you've just said, I think actually this image makes the land look somewhat flatter than in reality it is.

04:34:05I think the slope is somewhat more pronounced than it appears. And certainly speaking as one from yonder side of the hill, I'm a Cranbrook member, completely in agreement. I think that there should be a visual split between Wimple and Cranbrook in this area and that what is built on the far side of the hill in the image here should not be visible from where this image has been taken.

04:34:38The roof lines should be kept down to a level where the view there essentially remains the same and I think that's perfectly feasible with the topography that exists. so I'm completely in support of what Councillor Olive's proposed thank you Councillor Blakey do any other members wish to speak Councillor How I have no real problem with the ridgeline I get that um I do have some concern with the lowering of the housing number um I believe a change in the wording up to a maximum of 50 would be better and leave it to the planning application because that's what it's fundamentally down to is the planning application making sure one it doesn't reach that bridge line and it is in keeping with the surrounding area I just think we're artificially putting a number in that hasn't been properly assessed Does anybody else wish to speak?

04:35:42Councillor Faithfull very well Just coming back on Councillor Howe's comments from other planning applications where you've had a set number for a site, the applicants tend to put in a higher number. So you're saying you want 30, and the chances are the applicant will probably put in a bid for 50, whereas if you put it stated for 50, you'll probably get 65. The applicant's welcome to put in a higher bid, Peter.

04:36:15I think I'm asking for this change so that the policy says 30, because I think that's what's defensible at an appropriate density. um I I take mike's point I haven't scientifically measured it um but I think it's about right eyeballing it mr Freeman um I I would just um say that I think we have taken it tried to take a consistent approach in terms of how we've evaluated the numbers that can be accommodated on each site um so I would certainly favor uh Councillor How's suggestion of up to 50 that retains that approach um if they can't accommodate it given the points about the ridgeline which I have less of a concern with then um then it would come down but as you say ultimately the planning application is going to decide but I think in terms of defending the plan and the policy it's going to be difficult to understand how we would defend 30 when our methodologies come out at 50 and our methodologies come out with the numbers that we've put in

04:37:18Elsewhere in the plan as well there's a strange inconsistency that might be hard to explain whereas changing it to up to 50 overcomes that issue and still addresses the concern I think I'm not sure it does address the inconsistency to be honest um but in view that that's the professional advice of officers um he said through slightly gritted teeth um I will um now I'm going to hear some more speakers first Councillor David I'm going to support mike on this one um I I think speaking as chair of planning when these come to planning sometimes the numbers are greater sometimes they're less and I don't favor council of faithful's approach of you know we're not running an auction here where you kind of put in a lower number knowing that the the developers are going to come back with a bigger one. Each application is going to be tested on its merits. And I think the numbers are for our benefit, aren't they, to ensure that we have covered the allocation that we're required to make by government and what officers think the site can reasonably

04:38:49Accommodate when it comes to it we might feel that planning that it doesn't um that there are too many constraints um and that will be you know an argument to have another day but if officers feel that an allocation of 50 including the orchard is a reasonable allocation then I'm prepared to accept that um and I certainly support Councillor How's suggestion um that it's amended to up to 50.

04:39:33Go on then, Mr Hunter, give me some advice. Well, my two peneth is that there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to why you'd come to 30 as opposed to 50, whereas saying up to 50 is consistent with officer's advice. So I think that you'd be much safer to go with the proposal as amended by Councillor Howe than just pick a figure which potentially is out of thin air of 30.

04:40:00So I would strongly advise you to accept the amendment of up to 50. I mean, it hasn't, I haven't completely plucked it out of the air. I did do some rough measurements based on surrounding densities and comparing areas and things and taking into account the flood risk. I appreciate it's not scientific and it's not in front of us. I suspect that the planners may have done a bit more than that.

04:40:27I mean, they've applied a formula based on the site area, which is what we've done everywhere else. fine my proposal is up to 50 fine I'll take I'll take officers advices I don't think there's the supporting committee for whatever it was going to be I might regret that but we'll see that's the that's the proposal are you happy with that Brian a second okay fine does anybody else wish to speak no okay all those in favor do you know what you're voting on then folks I'll check before we conclude yeah everybody's happy okay fine um all those in favor then of the proposal as it stands six those against and those abstaining one thank you very much that's carried uh which then brings us I think unless somebody corrects me to the end of the report oh sorry wimple 11 yes I need to leave excuse me Councillor Howe right Wimple 11 any comments on Wimple 11 shall I propose it from the chair to accept officer's recommendation as it stands in that case can I please have a show of

04:41:54Hands to approve unanimous thank you very much okay thanks very much members uh darts farm then

04:42:23Please ed um so just quickly um so there is an employment allocation at uh clge 25a next to darts farm uh that's at the end of the report uh some concerns about flood risk highways and archaeology as with some of the other sites we're awaiting additional information um particularly in relation to um archaeology uh on the site so the officer recommendation is to wait for that further information before drawing conclusions but fundamentally to leave it in this allocation in the meantime I think that's more for members to note actually looking at the opposite recommendation but just thanks Ed I move the recommendation as it set out in the report from the chair does anybody wish to speak okay in which case all those in favor please members that's carried unanimously thank you very much we're going to break for lunch now at 20 to 3 so we're going to take a short one for what do you reckon half an hour half an hour do and then we'll come back and finish the rest of the agenda so we'll

04:43:29Reconvene at let's call it quarter past three thank you very much

00:02:51Okay. Thank you very much, everyone. It's called a pass, so we will resume with these last few reports. I think, strictly speaking, the next one on the agenda is the coastal change management areas. On the advice of officers, we're going to defer that one to the next meeting just to seek some additional clarification around various issues that are in the report, which means that the next report we're looking at is agenda item...

00:03:19I'm sorry oh sorry Marianne um we we only decided at half past six last night um so we're like no I didn't didn't think to tell Marianne sorry um we did tell John um that's completely derailed me so agenda item nine will come at the next available opportunity uh most likely September the 30th but watch out for that for all those who I'm sure were waiting on tenterhooks to hear that one on YouTube which brings us then to agenda item 10 looking at gypsy and traveller accommodation Mr Freeman please. Thank you chair I don't know if we can go to HDMI too only. So I'll be brief I mean this report is to update members on the latest position in terms of gypsy and traveller accommodation provision and proposals in terms of the Local Plan and change it to

00:04:49Duplicate so you've obviously got some details here in terms of the needs

00:05:13Assessment which I think you've had before when we originally had the gypsum traveler needs assessment so I won't go into detail on that but ultimately the total need we've assessed in terms of the Local Plan period is for 29 gypsum traveler pitches now in the in the first regulation 19 plan we were meeting that need through 15 permanent pitches at the second new community, five pitches on land east of the M5 and south of the Exeter-Waterloo line, through an allocation in the plan, and 15 pitches at the Cobdens and Tradespear expansion areas in Cranbrook. So effectively we had six additional pitches.

00:05:49So the issue wasn't so much about the number of pitches but more about the phasing of their delivery given the lead-in times for delivering pitches at new communities. Even the Cranbrook pitches I think are still several years away um probably seven or eight at least I think um off the top of my head and obviously um pitches at the second new community are unlikely to come forward in the next five years so the concern really is about was about delivering in the first five years of of the plan um particularly given that some of the identified need is in that first five years in fact quite a chunk of the need is in that first five year period so so largely for that reason we had proposed allocating this site at ashpigari brcl underscore 26 langerton lane pinhead which I know is quite controversial at the time in terms of um site particularly with langerton lane uh largely closed to vehicle traffic just north of the site and the relationship with some of the neighbouring uses in the country park.

00:06:57But we had hoped to allocate this site to address the shorter-term needs in terms of the Gypsy and Traveller community in the early years of the plan while the pitches at the new communities came forward. Unfortunately, through the consultation, this site has picked up a number of objections from Historic England Environment Agency in relation to archaeological issues on the site. again as we've seen on a number of other sites and flooding issues that we were aware of but we're hoping we could simply accommodate development on the parts of the site that don't flood. Our advice is that it would need to go through stage two of the strategic flood risk assessment regardless of that. So there's quite a lot of additional reports which I think we worked out amounted to well tens of thousands of pounds of work and the landowner has not been willing to do that work. In fact the landowner has been quite unwilling to commit shall we say in terms of his intentions with regard to the site perhaps understandably because the site is

00:08:03On the market and has been on the market for some time. So the fact that we don't have a willing landowner and we don't have sufficient information to overcome the objections that have been raised we're reluctantly recommending that we do not allocate site BRCL underscore 23 as an allocation and that's removed from the plan this does raise issues in terms of how we meet uh the needs of gypsy traveler community in the first five years of the plan um so that is a risk of vulnerability in terms of our case um but we're confident that those pitches at new communities would come through in the first 10 years of the plan would obviously meet the entirety of the need so it's a phasing issue rather than a total quantum of need so in the absence of any other sites that came forward through the call for sites as appropriate for gypsum traveling we think our best approach is to proceed with those allocations of the new communities and argue that those will meet the need ultimately albeit in the short term we

00:09:08Will be reliant on windfall sites coming forward to deliver the need. There's some comments about transit site provision, which needs to be looked at across the wider area in consultation with neighbouring authorities, given that the need that's identified is not specific to East Devon, so that's a piece of work that we need to pick up separately but doesn't require further work in terms of allocations in the Local Plan.

00:09:32The other thing to pick up is comments on the wording in policy HNO9 in relation to Gypsy and Traveller sites in the Reg 19 plan. We received some objections to that, particularly from a representative of the Gypsy Irish Travellers and New Travellers in Cornwall and Devon. We registered a charity called Traveller Space who raised some concerns about the wording of the policy, some of which we think is legitimate.

00:10:02So there's some amended wording to that policy in the agenda, page 102 and 103 I think the particular things of notes there are in relation to sites being limited to a maximum of 15 pitches so we have traditionally said this on the basis of government guidance but that guidance is now quite old it relates to 2008 and current guidance does not replicate that restriction on size in fact guidance now refers to good examples of delivery elsewhere from several pitches up to over 60 pitches on a single site so on balance we still feel that larger sites should be avoided if possible and we should stick to no more than 15 but we have diluted the policy slightly with regard to that so that it refers to sites should ideally consist of up to 15 pitches rather than that express requirement they not exceed 15 pitches as a maximum uh there's some other wording uh softening of wording in terms of uh landscape impact accepting that um these sites rarely come forward other than in countryside

00:11:15Locations where they are likely to have some landscape impact uh and obviously an acceptance in terms of relationship with other settlements and range of services and facilities and being within a 15-minute travel time is perhaps slightly harder to achieve in the case of gypsum traveller pictures. So slightly changing the wording so that they be located within a reasonable distance of a range of services, including school and health services. So you see the wording that's recommended there in relation to that. There were also objections received to us requiring a local connection and limiting windfall sites to those applications who can show that there is an unmet need in the district in terms of non-compliance we feel that a local connection is still quite important otherwise we could end up accommodating large numbers of travelers with no connection to the district just seeking to live in this part of the country um so and their needs should be assessed through the through a future egyptian travel needs assessments rather than coming through windfall sites and us just having

00:12:28To to accommodate them so we've accommodated a number of the changes recommended through those objections but as I say not all of them were comfortable that we can defend that position and in terms of the sites that would remain in the plan we would be deleting the site that's on the screen and relying on the other allocations which are the trace of the expansion area which you can see highlighted on the screen how it's shown in the Cranbrook master plan so there's the two sites there at Tradesbury and Cobden's and we'll obviously be identifying sites at the second new community in the future so the recommendation fundamentally is as set out in the papers that Strategic Planning Committee endorsed the officer recommended changes to delete site brcl underscore 23 and amend the related plan policies as set out in the report thank you Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Are there any questions on this? No? Okay. In which case then, I think...

00:13:31I don't know if there's a question or a statement I'm going to ask. Okay, fine. Councillor Howe? Mr. Freeman, can you just give me certainty when we're looking at the policy changes, HN09? It's the safeguarding sites. Loss of sites will be strongly resisted, fine. if in exceptional circumstances such as long-term vacancy and a demonstrable lack of need. Now, I'm sitting here thinking of three sites that have been vacant now for many years purely because they were bought by the adjoining landowner because they didn't like who was using them.

00:14:08Now, I get that. If you've got money, you can do that. But should we be encouraging the possible removal of those sites? or should we be still protecting them irrespective I mean we are going to get rid of our need soon when this new town accommodates all this um availability if you get my meaning but I'm sat here just wondering whether we should be protecting the sites almost irrespective of need because the need will grow again it's just my open thoughts um through chairman yeah I mean I take the point I think um I think the problem is in the case of a planning appeal we may struggle to defend the loss of a site if there's no demonstrable need for it at that point in time um I mean the same it's kind of a similar circumstance in relation to kind of loss of employment sites I suppose in that there will always be a future need for employment sites but if we can't demonstrate that there's a need at that point in time then we struggle to defend

00:15:18The loss of them for other uses at appeal but I think the policy is quite clear that they would need to demonstrate a long-term vacancy and a demonstrable lack of need as you say there is a demonstrable need at the moment and until we meet that needs with new communities that will go unmet by the time we meet the needs with new communities I suspect more need will have arisen so it I think it may well still be quite hard for them to demonstrate a lack of need the problem is I think in the sites you referred to they're basically just sat there vacant because a wealthy landowner bought them up and cleared them and probably has no intentions of putting anything else on them so in effect we've lost them anyway even if the use remains yeah absolutely and I'm just thinking of how we use other wording and policies elsewhere um if I think of shops in commercial town centers sort of thing you have to advertise maybe try selling it and I'm just wondering whether we ought to be trying to encourage the use instead of just giving

00:16:26Them well you haven't been using it for eight years probably one of the sites that I can think of because it hasn't been advertised it hasn't been he's just keeping it sitting merrily waiting for that chance of getting it out of that classification I'm just sat here thinking maybe we should see it should be actively marketed for the purpose use as well or something like that before a change in use is granted I don't know I'm just throwing ideas around shall we say yeah I mean usually in terms of these policies demonstrating a lack of need often involves marketing the site and we got some guidance on the website about marketing I think that's specifically in relation to employment uses but we could look at revisiting that well we will need to revisit that in light of the new Local Plan anyway so we could look at broadening out the wording of that to to cover this eventuality and sort of say uses like this not just employment uses would need to be marketed in accordance with that guidance to demonstrate a lack of demand do you need to amend the

00:17:32Recommendation in the report to give you a hook for that I wouldn't want to suggest wording now um I think if we can agree what we've got here we can take that away but I think off the top of my head that's more about what the guidance on the website says rather than necessarily what the policy says just to save you bringing back another report is it worth agreeing delegated authority for you in consultation with me to agree a wording to that effect well we'll have to bring back a new version of the plan to be agreed to get for the next Reg 19 consultation anyway so we can incorporate any further changes then okay are there any other comments on this paper or can I safely propose the recommendations paul um three very brief ones chair one on the previous slide just for clarity it referred to uh sorry previous one to that brcl 26 and officer recommendation removed 26 that should be 23 shouldn't it they're not we are not getting mixed up with two different ones I think this is 23

00:18:35Langton Lane according to the one here just for that confirmation on the revised wording of HNO9 it's just a tiny pedantic point obviously with the exclusion of B everything else shunts up but that will be covered when that happens the third one is sort of related to this and comes from my experiences as a clerk to a local authority small local authority that's experiencing some issues recently is at what point do we as a planning authority accept that sometimes travellers don't want to use these sites because that is commented upon an awful lot we've had two visits in the last six months in Axminster and I've spoken to the travellers concerned I've spoken to DCC's travelly liaison officer and the travellers who arrived and then subsequently left didn't want to use the site of Hawke Church so we have a site of Hawke Church which can accommodate them and they don't want to use it and that seems to be the case in Exmouth it seems to be the case in Honiton in Exeter and elsewhere in Devon and I am just minded that we

00:19:52Are we have a policy because we're required to have a policy within the nppff but you're creating land and allocating spaces in Cranbrook and previously in pinhoe that aren't going to be used won't be used it just seems dare I say a little bit pointless and I appreciate as mr Freeman said it's an awful amount of time and discussion and work for something that's almost superfluous and that's not really a question that's just I say more of a statement um I know we've got to do this and we've got to have them but they're not used it just seems ridiculous surely it should be up to each individual authority to determine whether there is a genuine need for them and and that they are going to be used.

00:20:39Thank you, Chair. Yes, thank you, Chair. Just to come back, it is 26. You're right, I don't know why the report first is 23. Apologies for that, but the screen is correct. So if we can amend the recommendations referred to BRCL underscore 26. I guess the other thing to say is in terms of actual use of the sites, I think it does depend on site. I'm aware with the Hawk Church one, And there were a number of issues in terms of the site accepting non-Gypsies and travellers onto the site and antisocial behaviour, shall we say, taking place on the site, which was deterring Gypsies and travellers from going there.

00:21:24I'm not sure exactly what the current situation is. I think the site is better managed and better run now, but whether or not there is an increased take-up of Gypsies and travellers using it, I'm not sure. But yes, that is a challenge, is identifying sites that actually meet the need. And I think part of the issue is the need that we've identified through the surveys, primarily in the western part of the districts, whereas obviously Holt Church being in the east, it's not picking up on where the majority of the need is, which is where we'd hope the Langerton Lane site would help to do that and the pitches at Cranbrook and the second new community will help to do that.

00:22:01So it's not just delivering across the districts, it's delivering them in the right locations which is primarily the western part of the district with good access to the road network which is what we've tried to do by designing them into the new communities so hopefully they will actually be taken up and and used um and I suppose that there's a wider issue then of once we go down this route work with groups um such as um traveler space to publicize where we who provided facilities and encourage them to encourage their members and the users of their service to make use of them because that's the point we'll provide them we're not providing them for the you know well for the sake of just ticking a box because we want to provide amenity and to stop other communities having to accommodate uh where they're quite evidently unable to thank you chair thank you Councillor Hayward any other comments from folks Councillor Faithfull and Councillor Davey do we have anything in the west end as I'm sure the chair is aware we've got some

00:23:09On daisy mount moved back in again so there is somebody needs something but I don't know if they've got anywhere else to go or is it daisy mount is the only place available mr Freeman do you want to come in there well I need to say that there is a distinction between transit pitches, and I think what happens at Daisy Mount at this time of year in the summer is you get travellers who are passing through the area, stopping in that area, not necessarily permanently in residence there. What we're talking about here is permanent pitches and there are some others in the area, there's some over nearer to Broadclist in the area there's the Travelling Show People sites, both north of this site at langerton lane but also uh pitches in in council house ward at cliss st mary as well so there is some provision in terms of a permanent pitches it's it's the transit pitches that cause the the seasonal issues of people just stopping by the side of the road such as

00:24:13At daisy mount I don't think there's been massive issues this summer compared to some of the previous summers um but yeah I think we commonly see them stopping at daisy mount don't we Councillor Davey. Yeah, it's just answered one of my questions, which was these are for people who have been travellers but want to settle down somewhere. Yeah, that's my understanding. And I did wonder what we did about people who are just passing through them, but I see that's answered.

00:24:48It will come forward as part of a larger discussion with other authorities. to provide transit sites. So I see we're proposing to delete the requirement for a local connection. And that does seem to make sense, because I think if you're nomadic and you've moved in and out of various places, then if people want to come and settle here, we don't require it for anybody else who wants to come to settle here.

00:25:24So I don't see why we should require it for travelers so I'm in favor of deleting that requirement Thank You Councillor David does anybody else wish to speak no okay in which case then I will propose the recommendation as it is set out in the officer reports save to correct the site reference to broad list 26 instead of 23 could spot council Hayward any further speakers note in which case then can I ask all those in favor please that is carried unanimously okay thank you very much members the next paper then the duty to cooperate mr. Freeman thank you so yes so this report picks up on a couple of different strands the first really is about duty to cooperate this takes you through a couple of the issues there and where we currently stand so in terms of housing requirements members will recall we've received representation in the past from Torbay council in terms of them stating that they didn't feel that they could meet their housing need and we're expecting East Devon to accommodate some of that we've pushed back against that

00:26:43On the basis of lack of evidence to demonstrate that they cannot meet their housing need but also concerns about whether or not delivering additional homes in East Devon would actually meter tour bay need given the quite significant separation distance between the two authorities and that continues to be the position that hasn't really moved forward in terms of neighboring authorities of mid Devon somerset and dorset they're all early stages of planned production so it's not clear whether or not they will be able to meet their own housing requirements um what's proposed in terms of paragraph 2.4 in the report is adding some text into the Local Plan to say that in the event of housing not being delivered in accordance with the plan and or the identified need for new homes changing in the future including taking account of possible unmet needs in neighboring areas requirements of national policy and legislation for review slash update of the plan will be followed this is text that's been accommodated in in some other local plans most recently team bridges uh as a way of of sort of

00:27:50Addressing this issue in terms of duty to cooperate over housing needs and accepting that um if for whatever reason sites within our plan don't come forward or there's unmet needs in areas then we would look at um updating or reviewing the plan um so it's a it's a nod to that duty to cooperate um not necessarily committing us to doing that but is seen as a way of addressing those issues I think in the case of teambridge they actually moved from having wording in a policy through the examination process to the inspector actually recommending taking out a policy and just putting in explanatory text over the tour bay issue and obviously they're an adjoining authority to tour bay so um I think this has good standing and is a good way forward of addressing that issue and mitigating risks examination that that might raise in terms of employment land provision members will be aware we've consistently objected to Exeter's Local Plan on the basis of lack of employment land provision within the city which falls substantially

00:28:52Short of that identified in the economic development needs assessment for the wider greater extra area um you can see uh their position kind of set out in in the box beneath paragraph 3.3 uh we're working with them on a statement of common ground to set out respective positions obviously respecting what we've previously said on on their local planning consultation responses there's no intention to change from from that stance um but the report picks up on the fact that technically there's no delegated authority for us to sign a statement of common ground with the city council so seeking delegated authority for to myself in in consultation with the chair to sign a statement of common ground just setting out our position in terms of that which will help to inform the future examination of the Exeter Local Plan um there's obviously ongoing transport work still in terms of the greater extra transport study that's just touched on here we are beginning to see some outputs and findings from that so hope to be able to bring that work

00:29:57To you alongside the work on the second new community at our next meeting um over work that's ongoing implications of additional traffic for the pebble adhesive I think I mentioned this earlier in terms of the Habitat Regulations assessment work um which flagged up this concern about the impact of petrol and diesel vehicle exhaust leading to increased levels of nitrogen being deposited along the roads which can lead to um what refers to the wrong types of vegetation growing alongside the roadside so we've got consultants looking at that and developing a mitigation strategy for that which again is further evidence we will bring to you in due course and the other thing is obviously the long-running saga of the water cycle study so you'll know the environment agency raised some concerns about lack of evidence in regard to water quality issues in response to regulation 19 plan and a desire to see a water cycle study members will be aware that was commissioned some time ago there's still some additional work to be done first of all in terms of aligning that work with the current allocations as sit in Local Plan

00:31:06As of now because obviously that work was that modelling was originally done earlier in the process against the previous set of allocations perhaps more fundamentally is further work in terms of understanding the impacts on transmission infrastructure particularly that leading to the Maer Lane wastewater treatment works given the known issues in Exxon for wanting to have a better understanding of that and also trying to document the investment works that have gone into Maer Lane but also the Countess Weir wastewater treatment works and relating that back to the conclusions of the last water cycle study which members had raised as a concern in the fact that narrative doesn't follow through necessarily in terms of what's happened there so the consultants asking are doing the further work to address those issues and I hope that we'll have a complete water cycle study shortly and certainly be bringing that to you uh alongside this for the second regulation 19 consultation accepting that that's important evidence that we have for that consultation exercise um the final part of the report then talks about

00:32:14Potential things we could do to address the water environments there are several policies within the plan around green and blue infrastructure control of pollution flooding issues but there's no overarching policy about water quality issues so the report makes a suggestion that we could include a policy to explicitly put improvements to water quality at the heart of the plan and address issues around requirements for major development proposals to demonstrate what measures can reasonably be taken to enhance the water environment a requirement for development to make adequate provision of water services the phasing of development to ensure avoidance of or mitigation of any adverse impacts to residents on water supply wastewater infrastructure provision of surface water drainage and disposal and measures to protect aquifers and source protection zones we feel with the benefit of hindsight that a policy that covers off those areas across the whole plan area would be beneficial in terms of having a robust approach to the water environment in the plan and would recommend that we add in an additional policy that addresses those issues don't have the detailed wording today but if members are happy

00:33:26We can work that up to go into the next situation of the plan for the second Reg 19 consultation so that leads us to four recommendations on the front page of the report which are the Strategic Planning Committee note the issues highlighted in the reports, particularly those that remain unresolved. The SBC agreed to the addition of explanatory tests to deal with any future significant under delivery of housing, that the committee continue to be concerned with Exeter City Council's approach and give delegated authority for the statement of common ground I mentioned, and that members note the update on the water cycle study and consider the strategic policy proposed on water quality issues thank you chair thank you mr. Freeman and as a starting point I'm going to strongly endorse the various recommendations set out in the report and I will propose those from the chair save that the fourth recommendation be amended to read and agree to include rather than and consider including so that we are actually making a decision rather than just agreeing a recommendation that we consider it so you

00:34:34Have that proposal before you committee any questions or comments please Councillor Davey just that last one on page 110 the requirements to improve water quality I'm just wondering how how we can require major developers proposals to demonstrate what measures can reasonably be taken to enhance the water environment could we have a few examples of that that we could then give to developers because otherwise it just seems a bit nebulous to me and I'm not quite sure what we're asking for here so I think the example that comes to mind for me is filtration of surface water runoff uh to remove silt pollutants oil um whatnot from from highways and things but I'll go to mr Freeman um because he will be more of an expert than I well no I think I think that's a good example I think other things around um sud schemes to to hold surface water on the site and uh controlled discharge some of those are things that they do anyway but um you know water butts and things to

00:35:48Use excess water within the site um so there's there's lots of things like that um that I think would fall under that but I take your point that the wording as as in here is quite nebulous and broad and um we'll need to make sure that the wording in the policy is more clear and precise any other comments members Councillor Yeah and I'm looking at pages 108 109 in the Exeter comments I believe it's their policy and I'm sat here and I read it I've read it again and I'm sitting here going across the greater Exeter area or the great x across greater Exeter they are it's not specific it really doesn't relate to anything that's known by anybody either you in Exeter or you're outside of Exodus and what's accident greater Exeter we relate to in their comments you know are they talking about a site at West Hill you know an Autry or Exmouth you know how far does their greater Exeter extend to I would like a bit better clarity from them as to what they're referring to it's

00:37:03It's almost as if Exeter's approach to employment land is a complete nonsense. It doesn't make any sense at all. Mr. Freeman? Well, I think it probably dates back to when we commissioned the EDNA, the Economic Development Needs Assessment, I think I'm writing saying we were working on the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan at the time, which was across the whole administrative areas of East Devon, Exeter City, Mid-Devon and Teambridge.

00:37:31So I suspect that's what they're referring to is that whole area but more logically in terms of meeting the employment needs of Exeter I think they would be referring more to the west end of East Devon than the eastern side of the district where I would suggest it's not really meeting an Exeter need it's more the need of those specific settlements but yes I think that was part of the concern when the term greater Exeter was first coined as to what does it actually mean and what area does it actually cover um but I mean I think I think the fundamental problem here is that they are relying on neighboring authorities to meet the need that's identified and just badging it as a greater Exeter need whereas our understanding was that you know each authority would would meet its own need um there have been formal discussions about us meeting any of the stated need for Exeter and that's really where the concern arises I think the interest one of the challenges here is that as I've said earlier in the meeting we are allocating more employment land

00:38:41Than we technically need to looking at the economic development needs assessment um but we are doing that partly in terms of the second new community ensuring that that's their self-contained and sustainable settlement by having the right mix of uses within that space but also to address latent demand for employment spaces that we don't believe the edna picked up on and to provide choice to the market because we know a number of the sites that we've got in the plan for employment allocations have challenges to them in terms of their delivery and their viability which means some of them either may not come forward or may be delayed until later in the plan period so there are reasons as to why we've done that but I think extra are jumping on that and saying oh look you've inadvertently or possibly not inadvertently um they perhaps like to think intentionally met some of their employment need but we expressly haven't um and um that's what needs to come through in these discussions and be made clear to the examination through a statement

00:39:43Of common ground okay thank you are there any other comments on this report please no okay in which case then members you have a proposal in front of you to accept officer's recommendation with that slight change in wording to reflect the decision being made all those in favor please thank you members that's unanimous I think which brings us then to last but by no means least the paper on wind farm and turbine policy mr Freeman yes thank you Yeah, so we had some comments through the consultation in terms of our policy about wind farms and land suitable to accommodate energy generating uses from wind.

00:40:39Some members will recall that this was in response to our understanding of the 2023 version of the NPPF about needing to identify areas where such uses are acceptable, which was the approach of the previous question. government um what we've had since then is new government come in the new 2024 version of the mppf which is very much more supportive and open to wind generating uses previously they had to be accommodated within uh specifically identified areas and have community support um and so for that reason we had identified in the plan uh specific areas and you can see some of them on the screen and there's some more elsewhere these basically blue areas that are identified and what we've had through the consultations particularly from historic England is concerns expressed that these amount to actual allocations for wind generating uses or wind generating wind energy uses in those locations I think because they sort of follow field boundaries and specific sites rather than being larger zones.

00:41:53It wasn't the intention that they be allocations. These were areas that are identified in a study that was done as part of the work for the Greater Extra Strategic Plan in identifying locations that would potentially generate levels of energy that would make a wind farm or wind turbines viable. So there are two options here, really. one, we could contest Historic England's approach and argue that we continue to show these areas that they are simply areas where its suitability has been assessed, and these are suitable areas where wind energy generating uses could be accommodated and argue that historic and are wrong or we could delete the areas and just have a criteria-based policy approach now the challenge here is in terms of how this will be interpreted by the examination given that the plan is currently moving forward and the transitional arrangements will be assessed against the 2023 version of the NPPF which is the one that talks about having areas of suitability identified and then it's how you interpret that um however one would hope and expect I think that

00:43:12The examination would have one eye on the direction of government policy and where things are going with the new 2024 NPPF and then there's just a matter of interpretation of the wording in the 2023 version as to whether or not it's an actual requirement or or just an option in terms of these areas so on on balance I think the conclusion we've reached as officers is um in in response to uh the comments of historic england that um we we could remove those areas and simply recommend that um we have a criteria based policy rather than the specific areas um and if there's challenge through the examination process we can argue we're responding to historic england's concerns look one eye on the direction of travel in terms of government policy as well and argue that that's an appropriate approach I think from memory there was some discomfort shall we say among the committee in terms of identifying these areas in the first place so also sort of weighed that in the balance as well I don't think there's a right or wrong answer but

00:44:21We think that's probably the best approach so that's the recommendation thank you Okay, thank you, Mr. Freeman. Again, I'm going to propose that recommendation from the Chair, just as a starting point for the discussion. For good order, Councillor Davey then, please. Well, firstly, I don't agree with historic England. I don't see why those are allocations any more than the housing allocations are allocations. That doesn't automatically mean that they won't be tested again at planning in exactly the same way that solar farms are.

00:45:06And we accept some and we turn some down. So these are simply areas that have been identified as possible suitable sites. And I'm wondering whether we can go for a kind of hybrid approach, which kind of covers both of these. That we have a criteria-based policy very similar to what we have for solar, but that we also include these as examples of sites that have been identified as possibly being suitable for wind farm development.

00:45:49So that we're not endorsing them, but we are saying that these are sites that have been identified. It seems a shame to lose that work, but at the same time, I don't want us to be restricted just to those sites, and I'd be much happier with a criteria-based policy the same as we do for solar. But I'm just wondering if there's some way that we can include these but perhaps give a bit less weight so that historic England don't get panicky about them but I don't agree with them anyway no I mean I don't agree with them either necessarily but I think the issue is that and I think what their comments show is that they could be interpreted as allocations even if that's clearly not the intention and we haven't assessed the site in terms of their suitability in terms of the impact on the historic environment if wind turbines were put forward in those locations and I think part of their point is that if if we did that then in all likelihood they'd have quite significant impacts on for example uh grade two

00:47:09Listed building at pines house or poultimore house and therefore they they don't consider they would necessarily be acceptable and therefore what's the benefit of of showing them I think the fact that there's there's so few of them and they're pretty small areas illustrates the lack of opportunity for wind energy generation development in East Devon to be honest and that's what the study ultimately showed um so I I think interestingly a criteria-based policy as you say could potentially open up other sites to come forward and is perhaps arguably less restrictive than what we've got based on the intention of them just being areas that are suitable rather than allocations but probably the reality is that it wouldn't be technically feasible or viable to do it in other locations anyway other than potentially on a small domestic basis I'm pretty sure we've got one or two farms I think that have um put up wind turbines outside of those areas just to supplement their own energy intake so things like that um a criteria-based policy would would pick up on as I don't think there's any right or wrong um quite comfortable with

00:48:22Arguing it either way but I I think probably the simplest thing to do is the criteria based policy and and drop the identified areas particularly given how few there are um okay thank you mr Freeman uh lots of hands for this one I saw kevin first uh so Councillor Blakey then Councillor Faithfull then Councillor Collins very simply I agree that a criteria base only is the way to go because if we start putting blobs on maps and saying oh that's a baby that will immediately be taken as oh you've already earmarked that so um I would say leave the maps well alone and just lay the criteria out and make them tight I think that was agreeing with ed wasn't it kevin you heard it here first I was gonna say there's a first time for everything Councillor Faithfull thank you chair um I'm not quite sure why these sites are being selected but I would thought you want to have wind where you're not tucked in behind stoke hill because this is right the prevailing wind is from the southwest and you're on the opposite side of stoke hill which

00:49:34Is going to reduce the wind considerably I would have thought but it is close to Baltimore as well okay of course we solve that problem if we just get rid of the policy policy areas on the map But thank you for that observation, Peter. Councillor Collins.

00:49:55Thank you. I personally, I don't like these windmills because they kill so many birds. And at Poultimore, across to Silverton, we still have quite a few skylarks in that area. Do you want to kill all the remaining skylarks? It's not good. It's difficult to find the evidence for the killing of these birds and bats, by the way, because obviously they're killed and they drop down and then the fox and the badger comes along and has a good feast.

00:50:39So it's very difficult, but I certainly wouldn't want to see windmills in that area because of the skylarks.

00:50:48Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor Collins. Again, problem solved if we get rid of the areas shown on the map. Councillor Hayward.

00:50:58Thank you, Chair. Having just come back from two weeks' leave from an area that is absolutely covered, and I didn't find them noticeably terrible in that landscape. In fact, they blended in nicely. Certainly a couple of places I stayed, when they're shrouded in mist, They're actually quite beautiful things to look at. I do have to take exception with what Councillor Collins said about the impact of wind turbines on bird life.

00:51:33Yes, inevitably, some birds will be killed. But I recall reading that if you compare the effect of wind turbines on the bird population and the impact of domestic cats, it's incomparable. Effectively, you'd have to get rid of every cat in the UK to go somewhere near to the damage they wreak on the bird population. So I don't think that the potential for bird deaths can stymie what is effectively a very versatile and worthwhile means of generating renewable energy.

00:52:15You know we are going to have to transition as much as great many members of the population don't believe it's necessary it will be necessary we live in a in a coastal area there's a great potential for wind energy for tidal energy for solar and I think we've just got to change and I appreciate this policy isn't about the generalities and the ethics of it and this is a particular thing within our Local Plan but I think generally we've got to do more and embrace what other countries have been doing for decades. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Hayward. Does anybody have any comments on the recommendation as it's been proposed please? Councillor Howe. Shall we go to the vote? Yeah I was going to do that. Thank you Mike. Is everybody clear what they're voting on please okay all those in favor of the recommendations are set out please thank you very much members that is the end so long farewell see you on the 30th of September