Strategic Planning Committee, 25 November 2025

00:00:00Heading, land at St John's. Paragraph 9. Just to read, no built development will be allowed in the buffer zone. Now how hard is that? Once again, thank you for your work. And if you have been listening, thank you very much. Six. I was feeling generous. Thank you, [member of the public]. [member of the public]. Sorry, [member of the public]. To go for Reg 19 again today would be a massive mistake.

00:00:58There are two key evidence documents which have just landed which should have been available in Reg 18 to inform and shape this plan. The water cycle study, where it's questionable methodology, where access to Maer Lane treatment site calculations take no accounts for tourist accommodation, including the Sandy Bay town, or that the status quo of regularly dumping sewage in the sea is an acceptable solution. Councillors, please make your own judgment, and if you pledge to residents to try to sort this out, this starts today with you rejecting this study as flawed.

00:01:29Otherwise, you're accepting that the current situation is okay and southwest water gets away with minimal investment. The mitigation strategy, which Mr Freeman convinced you on the 4th of February would provide a solution, as of today, over nine months later, concludes it was not possible to screen out a likely significant effect within the Pebblebed Heaths. The plan will need to be amended to eliminate this residual adverse effect.

00:01:52No viable mitigation so no supporting each HRA and therefore no legally compliant plan I told you this december 11th february 4th and for what it's worth I stand here again today [member of the public] professionalism should compel him to advise you the same he quotes paragraph 86 but he never mentions that the lpa must believe the plan is sound and legally compliant the appearance of both these deficient documents now has created an opportunity to take stock. Do you want to send a plan that appears sound and legally compliant to the inspector or do you want to send this plan which is evidently neither? This would be so short-sighted as you can address many of the issues with a few non-significant tweaks now and have much greater confidence when sending this plan the inspector remember you currently have spare above headroom allocation of 563 houses in this draft plan and I'm not suggesting that it's utilized solely for EXMO20 but if sound or legal compliance issues can be addressed by using this spare capacity it would be wise to get this plan

00:02:57More compliance now the half of the EXMO20 site which failed HELAA and has multiple compliance issues is 550. Coincidence, perhaps. If you do not address this now, you should scenario plan for a third Reg 19 consultation. Not so far-fetched when you recall the timetable Mr Freeman stated last time. And how will three appear to the inspector when they consider significant changes? Mr Freeman, if you could remove a site from the plan to make it more sound and legally compliant, which would you select? Ultimately, these sites selected need to be viable, deliverable solutions, not ones forced somehow to comply with endless onerous clauses and complex specialist reports.

00:03:40To continue with this plan, it needs to be a conscious decision based on the evidence that's available now. Please look at the end goal and not just kick the non-compliance issues onto the next stage.

00:03:52Thank you for listening. Thank you, [member of the public]. Next up then, please, [member of the public].

00:04:13Thank you, Chair Committee. I speak on behalf of Clinton and Devon Estates, who are the owners of the land to the east of Liverton Business Park in Exmouth, known as Exmo_18, and which is proposed to be allocated for employment purposes. The estate already operates the existing and successful business park which adjoins the site. They therefore welcome the proposal to allocate Exmo_18 for employment use, and the role this can play in underpinning Exmouth's future growth alongside wider housing in the area. The estate also welcomes a proposal which is now being presented as a refinement to the previous draft whereby the southern part of their land is now to have the potential to accommodate buildings having the potential for all areas of the allocation to be used to provide employment space is vital to the viability and deliverability of the land however we note that the policy in its current revised proposal proposes access for Exmo_18 should only come from within the existing business park to the west and there should be no access from Salterton road we understand that this is primarily due to concerns about the potential impact on the

00:05:12Nearby national landscape. This restriction is an important area of concern to the estate. They fully recognise the need to ensure any scheme addresses potential impacts on the nearby national landscape. However, the proposed restriction is unduly onerous given the context, given that views would be within the backdrop of the existing built-up area to the north and west, and the very much larger mixed Exmo_17 scheme, which, unlike the estate's land, will actually be within the national landscape immediately to the south.

00:05:42The prevention of such impacts can be fully addressed as part of any later planning application process to control building heights, landscaping, engineering and so on. From a commercial perspective, many prospective tenants will require a strong frontage and ease of access for customers. Whilst an access from within the existing business park may be acceptable to some occupiers within the northern part of Exmo_18, customers and tenants accessing those within the southern part will be faced with a 1.4-mile round trip to get on and off via the existing Liverton business park access.

00:06:19This is clearly a major disincentive to many would-be occupiers and therefore undermines the deliverability and viability of the entire area, not least given that the southern part being somewhat flatter and with a better frontitude would ordinarily be the most lettable part of the site. It is also important to note that requiring access to all parts of Exmo_18 from the existing business park, which is served by a single access, risks generating concentrating traffic congestion over what is already a busy junction.

00:06:47In light of all this, we request that the policy wording for Exmo_18 be adjusted to allow for at least the possibility of providing an access from Salterton Road, where this can be shown to be acceptable from a landscape and highway safety perspective and in line with the normal requirements of scurrying planning permission for before any development proceeds.

00:07:06Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. [member of the public]. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Escape Excellence. We welcome the publication of the water cycle study, but it's essential that this is accurate and takes all evidence into consideration. I want to draw your attention today to our concerns about the study, and specifically the comment in 7.13 of the report you've got today, which says that the evidence is robust.

00:07:46I want to give you an explanation why I disagree with that. There are gaps in the evidence, unanswered questions, and simple mistakes. The report fails to expose the full extent of Southwest Water's performance, which moved the District Council to pass a vote of no confidence in Southwest Water. From our experience of the last few years, it's obvious that the current network is not coping. Storm flows regularly spill untreated sewage into our water with only modest amounts of rain, yet this is not reflected in the report.

00:08:18Other gaps. Southwest Water itself says insufficient sewer capacity is the reason for high number of storm overflows in 13 sites in East Devon, including nine sewage treatment works. there's nothing on the poor performance that resulted in the off-wart settlement of 25 million pounds to make amends there's no mention of the high pollution incident rate southwest water has more than double the national average there's no examination of the impact of not building Cranbrook this was central to the previous report in 2010 this missing evidence points to a network already under severe strength.

00:09:02And there are questions that should have been answered. Mayer Lane was approaching capacity in 2010, yet the consented flow was increased by 30% without any additional work. This effectively reduces its ability to deal with rainfall. Is this the reason for the increase in spills and duration? There's no comparison between local trends and regional patterns. Spills in Eczema are 79% higher. The duration has doubled since 2020. Why are we so far above the national average?

00:09:36Why are our rising mains failing, in some cases after less than 20 years? The report also assumes a reduction in water use in a third. Given that current consumption of water is 150 litres per day per person, how do we get there? No comment about it. The report would be more robust with answers to these questions. Finally, some of the mistakes. The report gives an impression that Exmouth Works is complete, and we're all happy about it.

00:10:09But in fact, it's not going to be complete and delivering benefits until 2030 at least. Southwest Water has admitted errors in data. Douglas Avenue on the mayor has never spilled for nearly 15 years, yet it appears in this robust report. Could I ask you to finish up, please, Mr. Chairman? Thank you.

00:10:29Thank you for your time. I recommend a pause and consideration to make it robust.

00:10:39Thank you. [member of the public]. Good morning, councillors, and thank you for inviting us to speak. My name is [name removed], and I'm representing the Otter Valley Association, a civic society with over 2,000 members and supporters. As you know, the objective of the Water Cycle Study is to inform the East Devon Local Plan, ensure it supports sustainable growth and identify housing constraints that may limit housing growth. We are here to support the study's conclusion that no additional housing load should be applied to the Honiton, Fenton and Fluxon catchments without first addressing the clear deficits in treatment capacity.

00:11:35In 2024, Honiton Sewage Works discharged untreated sewage directly into the otter for nearly 5,000 hours. In this study, we find out why. Honiton has the second highest number of wastewater vulnerability indicators and is already exceeding its treatment capacity by 40%, and that's just in dry weather. The otter also has the biggest phosphate problem in the region, with 70% coming from sewage works. Honiton is a source of over half that phosphate and has been in breach of its permit condition on phosphate for three of the past six months.

00:12:14The otter is officially designated a sensitive area for phosphate, and the visible environmental impacts of high phosphate include dense blanket weed and algae growth, smothering the riverbed. It's worth noting that three of the studies for red status sewage works discharged directly into the River Otter. Honiton is now projected to see the largest proportional increase in housing in the region with 838 new homes, with significant growth also planned for Honiton, Fluxon and Feniton.

00:12:49To accommodate this planned development, Honiton will require a 73% increase in treatment capacity from the report. The greatest deficit in the region in Fluxan and Fenton will require 25% and 20% respectively. The study therefore concludes no additional housing load should be applied to Honiton, Fenton and Fluxan catchments without first addressing the clear deficits in treatment capacity and phosphate removal. However, there is a silver lining in the report. It does appear that Southwest Water could remedy several critical issues and enable much needed home building by bringing forward the scheduled update of Honiton to a 2030 completion. A relatively low and overdue investment by Southwest Water providing the required treatment capacity and phosphate removal could unlock significant investment and pressure on local housing we therefore ask the council to require southwest water to bring forward these plans before considering any further development in the otter catchment thank you thank you [member of the public] and I would point um as that's a straightforward question to answer to recommendation five of the first substantive paper on the agenda we will

00:14:10Absolutely be looking at that sorry correction recommendation six uh got my numbers mitched up we will absolutely be looking at exactly that measure. There will be a further report in the new year, which will be looking at what phasing and delaying of development that we need to do. So just to reassure that will absolutely be on our agenda at a subsequent meeting. Mr Freeman, there's a number of points there that I think probably warrant picking up briefly, if I may, please.

00:14:37Yes, thank you, Chair. Good morning, members. So yes, if we go back to the beginning, so I think there were concerns especially by [member of the public] about how public comments have been considered through the plan making process obviously members have received reports after each consultation summarizing the responses received and then a series of reports about how we've then taken those comments on board and the amendments that have been made to the plan so I think we've actually been very open and transparent throughout the process in terms of the consultations and how those have been dealt with however clearly we haven't addressed all of the comments that the public have been raising um in some cases it's simply not possible to address those concerns and we don't feel that it's necessary to do so um but I'm confident all comments have been heard and considered through the process and that's documented in the reports that you've received uh there was a call to remove ambiguity over the 400 meter zone for EXMO20 concern about commercial and other uses in those areas the requirement for the 400 meter zone however

00:15:37Relates to residential development and in particular impacts on wildlife arising from predation from pets and animals kept at residential properties within that zone and fires, domestic fires and things. Those issues wouldn't arise with community uses or commercial uses and so I don't see a planning basis upon which to restrict those uses within that zone. We obviously need to be very careful about the impacts on the wider landscape and the habitats which would need to be assessed for an application process and Habitat Regulations assessment at that time but I don't see a basis upon which to exclude those forms of development within that area through policy moving on [member of the public] made some points about moving the settlement boundary and the site boundary to exclude that 400 meter zone again the comments I've just made apply to that I think the other point to make there is that obviously the access into eximo 20 is through that 400 meter zone and so we need to ensure that the site has an acceptable access for it to be viable and deliverable we don't know precisely where that access will come in

00:16:51And so we can't draw a line just around the access we need the whole of that area within the site there is also the point about potential commercial and community uses that could take place in that area and may well be acceptable in terms of of habitat mitigations and issues there um I think [member of the public] made some points about the water cycle study um and it not taking account of sandy bay um I admit it doesn't make it clear what's in the baseline but the assessment has been done based on the discharges running through the existing system so logically it takes account of the existing population of of the area um and that's those measurements I think have been taken at various points so it should take account of of the impacts currently being felt by the wastewater treatment system. In terms of the Habitat Regulations assessment I'll freely admit I had hoped that we would have that completely addressed by now and would be able to rule out significant effects on the Pebblebed Heaths in terms of air quality issues unfortunately that

00:17:52Isn't the case there is further work needed in terms of developing a mitigation strategy in terms of the impacts of air quality on the Pebble Bird Heaths. What we have is a robust assessment of the impacts there and a document that sets out what some of those mitigation measures might be. But in order to develop a detailed mitigation strategy, there's further work needed in terms of understanding what those mitigations are, how they would be delivered, how they would be funded, and to discuss those with natural landowners and other stakeholders.

00:18:28So that work is is ongoing um I would draw a comparison between that and when we were doing the previous Local Plan and and issues around impacts on uh the Pebblebed Heaths and the accessory were identified at that time uh and and the development of mitigation strategy was was a process that took place alongside that um and so I think there are some similarities there we obviously have a bit more time before we submit the plan and it's at the point of submission that we really need to be satisfied that the plan is legally sound and meets those tests so we have a bit of work to do to get to that point but we're doing everything we can to make sure we are at the plan submission. [member of the public] made some points about Exmo_18. I've had some email correspondence with him as you would imagine in the run-up to this meeting. The concern about access onto the Salterton Road is large in terms of the impact on the national landscape those familiar with the Salterton Road and that entrance into Exmouth will appreciate that that site will be essentially

00:19:30The first thing you will see as you drive into Exmouth in from the one I think it was the Budleigh Salterton across the Bobad Heath's Road and there's quite significant level differences between that part of the site and the bottom end of the site which means we're concerned about the engineering operations and the land works that would be involved in terms of creating an access at that point and the visual impact of that on the setting of the national landscape we're also concerned that what we wouldn't necessarily want to see is large frontage development at that point because as you're coming into the town it's obviously very open aspect appreciate Exmo_17 on the opposite side of the road will have an impact on that but that is further into the town and off to that side so I think it's important that we protect the openness and character of that area but interested to hear hear members views as that's debated as we move forward we have however made some amendments to the wording of the policy

00:20:32Which you will see and I'll touch on in a moment with regard to Exmo_18 but we haven't address that particular point that [member of the public] raised. Other issues were raised in terms of the water cycle study. As I say, I think it's important to focus on the purpose of that study, which is about assessing the impact of growth and development over the planned period on water supply and wastewater capacity.

00:21:01So the report wasn't commissioned specifically to look back and criticise southwest water or issues that have been experienced to date. It's largely a forward-looking document, but it obviously starts on the baseline of today. There obviously have been lots of pollution events in the recent past and lots of impacts from that. That is well known. The report is about looking forward at the impact of growth moving forward on the area.

00:21:27And I think it does that. One point I think was raised was about the progression of Maer Lane from the previous water cycle study and there is a section within the report which addresses that specifically and explains a narrative of previous updates at paragraph 5.1.8 in the report where it looks at previous updates to Exmouth Maer Lane and explains the sequence of events from the 2010 water cycle study to today it does the same thing for Countess Weir which was another point that's previously been raised in terms of this disparity in terms of the conclusions of the 2010 report and today so I think that that is all addressed within the report. In terms of the reduction in water usage the recommendation is that we adopt the highest standards in building regulations for new homes coming forward. I think the report is quite clear that it's a water industry aspiration to bring about that reduction in water usage in existing properties but obviously we have no powers as a planning authority through the Local Plan to require new existing homes to

00:22:35Reduce their water usage um so uh just to make that clear that that's about future performance um I think correct me if I'm wrong chair that that covers the main points coming out of the public speakers but happy to pick up on anything I've missed thank you if there was a site which one would you take out to make it more sound given the spare capacity well oh a I wouldn't accept the spare capacity we need headroom in the plan to ensure that it's a robust and sound plan so um it's a purely hypothetical question and I don't suggest I answer hypothetical questions thank you [member of the public] apologies then uh members I missed uh agenda item one on uh our way into the meeting which is uh minutes of the previous meeting held on the 30th of september 2025 does anybody have any issues corrections in those papers please no in which case then as chair I will move those minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting please raise your hand if you're in support

00:23:53Those against and those abstaining okay thank you members I think that's carried um agenda item five there matters of urgency there are none uh and the same go mr chairman I did ask I was going to speak three times. Yes, I was going to bring you in on Agenda Item 7, thank you, Councillor Collins. Why didn't you let me speak earlier when the others did? Because I was advised that you wanted to speak about Agenda Item 7, so I'm going to bring you in on Agenda Item 7, Councillor Collins. Is that all right?

00:24:25No. Fine, then speak now, Councillor Collins. Thank you, Chair.

00:24:57I was very disappointed to see that nothing has been done to protect agricultural land in East Devon. 69% of the land in this country is farmland. There are 209,000 farm holdings. half of all holdings are less than 20 hectares 17 million hectares are farmed 25% of land will be gone by farmland will be gone by 2050 7,000 hectares are covered with solar panels there are plans for many solar panels to be put up in Norfolk.

00:26:05One plan is 7,000 hectares. Me and Peter Faithfull, we went to a meeting at Holesworthy where there were plants. One plan was for 2,700 hectares of land. And after the meeting we went to, we went to look at the land and it was beautiful, square fields. God, I'd love to farm that land looking at it. Now, it's very, very sad. The world situation. There's a world shortage of beef.

00:26:43That's why the prices are so high. Rainforests have been cut down. There's 50,000 acres of rainforest in Mexico, which has been cut down to grow avocados to feed the people in this country. Rainforests were cut down in the Philippines. They had terrible, atrocious weather. 90 million hectares have been affected in the Philippines with flooding. 55,000 farmers affected. 19 million tonnes of rice and corn. All gone. They get 20 cyclones a year, and they get tsunamis and horrible weather.

00:27:37This year it's been exceptionally bad. Lots of houses have been flattened there. We do need our land, because we're not going to be able to import food in all these countries. Asia, all of Asia has been affected terrible. That is your three minutes could you wrap up please Councillor Connors Okay, returning to the agenda then folks, agenda item 7 the East Devon Local Plan's second stage of Regulation 19 consultation [member of the public] you Chair, so this item seeks committee approval for the second stage of Reg 19 consultation the intention being to start the consultation at the end of this week and run through to the 26th of January That would therefore be an eight-week consultation extending from the standard six weeks by two weeks to take into account Christmas and New Year.

00:28:38What you have in the papers is a changes version of the plan, which includes changes agreed at members' previous meetings. Obviously, some changes were agreed, particularly at the 2nd of September meeting in relation to particular sites and in relation to Marlcoom. but there are also numerous minor changes to wording which sought to address some typos and formatting issues that we've identified and also a small number of gaps in policy refinement of policy in light of new evidence and some updates in relation to housing employment data that we've received now that those have been rebased the 1st of april of this year so within the track changes you'll see there's various comments that should seek to explain those changes but just pick up on some of the the more significant changes within the document I'd highlight that paragraph 3.8 now includes some text highlighting that a review or update of the plan will be initiated if housing is not being delivered in accordance with the plan or identified needs change in the future this also includes possible unmet need in neighboring authorities this follows the approach endorsed

00:29:45By the team bridge plan inspector and seeks to address issues of future unmet need and the duty to cooperate issues around housing numbers and is in accordance with the NPPF so we think that's the best approach to to deal with those issues and taking a cue from what the inspector and in the team which plan has recommended to them there are obviously various factual changes to reflect the updated housing needs assessment so you'll see there's some updated figures around for example affordable housing requirements where the figure is slightly different from what we previously had. Strategic policy SPO3 has been updated to reflect the current designated neighborhood area housing requirements so those figures have been updated to reflect the current position. There are also various updates in response to Habitat Regulations assessment to make it clear that appropriate mitigation will be required and to require allocations to provide linkages into adjoining habitats where appropriate. There are updates in response to the Further, strategic flood risk assessment level 2 work that's been ongoing, and where necessary, we've put in text into allocations to ensure that proposals coming forward on those sites take account of that work.

00:30:57We've made a change to strategic policy WS10 in relation to land north of Topsham. This has been updated to reflect current DCC requirements in terms of education provision there. as has been mentioned the allocation of Exmo_18 liverton business park phase three has been updated to address impacts on the setting of the national landscape we've also done some updates to reflect archaeological investigations members will recall on the 2nd of september we noted that there was ongoing work in terms of archaeological investigations on some sites and those works are largely completed now but there are some sites where that works concluded that there are particular the things that need to be taken into account as proposals are developed for those allocations.

00:31:41[Passage not reproduced here. It contains allegations or strong criticism of named people or the council, made at the meeting. We don't repeat allegations; you can hear the passage in the council's own recording by playing it from this point.]

00:32:54Bishop's Clyst Parish having now been made. The allocation of wood underscore 28 and north-east of Exeton Farm has been updated to include reference to the safeguarding zone around Limston Commando. The site is partially within that zone, but it doesn't prohibit house building, so it's just to ensure that that's taken into account at the detailed design stage. In light of discussion at your September 2nd meeting, Strategic Policy AR02 water quality and efficiency has been updated to reflect members decision to include an overarching requirement the permission will not be granted where there is inadequate water infrastructure to service it and that obviously stems also from recommendations in the water cycle study that's before you today. Requirements for accessible and adaptable housing have been updated to reflect latest housing needs assessment work. Policy SEO2 employment development in the countryside has been updated to make express reference to agricultural buildings and requirements for them just to clarify that distinction between agricultural buildings and wider employment development we've also updated the parking standards at policy tro 4 so these have now

00:34:09Got an added section covering electric vehicles and charging requirements seeking to secure on street and off street ev charging points that would exceed the requirements of building regulation standards. This is partly in response to obviously trying to address climate change emergency, but also helping to address concerns about air quality at the Pebblebed Heaths, noting that that's primarily caused by vehicles, petrol and diesel vehicles, travelling over the pebble beds.

00:34:35So the more we can encourage electric vehicle and transition to EVs, the more we can help to mitigate that. Policy B, PBO1, Protection of Habitats, has also been amended to better reflect the distinction between international and national designated habitats and the different requirements that relate to those. That's also been carried through Interpolicy PBO4 in relation to Habitat Regulations assessments. And that also picks up also on amendments that have been carried out to address air quality issues at the pebble beds as well.

00:35:07We've also updated text that Strategic Policy OSO1, access to open space and recreation facilities to address issues raised by the police about designing out crime and access for all to those spaces um so those are the the main ones to highlight as I said there are numerous other changes to wording and tweaks um but those are the ones that I think have most impact in terms of changes um so those are included within the track changes document that's that's before you uh the intention is through the consultation to have a summary table uh that summarizes um those changes and then provides hyperlinks across to the track changes version so people can see that change in the context of the plan and understand why those changes have been made and track that through there's also a new policies map you'll see that there's a link in the agenda to that at paragraph 3.3 within this report apologies we have had some technical issues with that so there have been occasions where it's not been working I think it is now working having checked before I came into the room so fingers crossed

00:36:13But we're working on the resilience of that I think the the issues relate to the uploading of the layers so there's huge number of layers on that map and trying to get the balance right between having the right number of layers uploading right from the start previously it was trying to upload all layers when you went into it so if your broadband was slow it was taking a long time and falling over but we are working on that I think currently it just uploads a few key layers and seems to be working a lot better since that change was made um turning to supporting evidence then so clearly we've been seeking to consult on evidence documents for marl coon which were discussed at your meeting on the 5th september sorry 2nd of september um we also now have the long-awaited water cycle study which has been noted um and there's some commentary in section seven of the report in relation to the water cycle study and just to pull out some of the main conclusions from that um you will note that um the the biggest issue I suppose is in terms of

00:37:17Wastewater issues as we knew um there are some issues in relation to um potable water um supplies particularly in locations such as otterson fair mile and fenny bridges uh where further abstraction is unlikely to be permitted um but we're assured through the study that southwest water have proposals in place in relation to distribution across the wider area including from cheddar to reservoir and white cross distribution scheme to address demand issues and they're also working to reduce leakage which is a contributing factor as well turning to wastewater issues there are several wastewater treatment works within the area that are projected to exceed or approach their permitted dry weather flow limits post development and therefore necessitating upgrades or phase development through the plan rollout those relate to Colleton, Honiton, Fluxton, Feniton, Otterton, Maer Lane and Dunk as well so quite a number there that need to be addressed it also notes critical investment is needed at Exmouth Maer Lane as we know and also counters where wastewater treatment works to address hydraulic stress sewer flooding and future

00:38:31Capacity needs there is also a need for a new wastewater treatment works in the west end of the district to address future pressures on Countess Weir and obviously development from Marlcoome which will create additional pressures in that area. So there's a lot of work to be done there in terms of working with Southwest Water in terms of the timetabling of the delivery of growth and development in the district in sync with capacity improvements that they need to undertake within their infrastructure. There are a number of key recommendations that come out of water cycle studies some of which have been touched on already but include adoption of low water efficiency standards for new properties coming forward in the district of 110 litres per person per day issues around requiring environmental impact assessments for new developments that affect water services or protected habitats integrating biodiversity friendly design into developments particularly in relation to sensitive areas and obviously continued stakeholder engagement so those recommendations have been incorporated into the plan that's before you today and as is mentioned in the agenda the proposal is to

00:39:41Bring a further report post-consultation specifically on the water cycle study so that we can pick up on feedback from consultees particularly people like the Environment Agency and Natural England and have a wider debate also further to further conversations that we're hoping to have in the meantime with southwest water so proposal is to have further debate at that time once we have that additional information as I've mentioned we also have further work on air quality issues on the Pebblebed Heaths where concerns were raised through the Habitat Regulations assessment work about the impact of vehicle movements particularly petrol and diesel vehicles over the roads that cross the heaves. This work assesses those impacts but it does not yet go as far as we need to in terms of setting out a clear mitigation strategy. That work is ongoing. We will need to ensure that we have that work for submission of the plan to ensure that the legal requirements are met at plan submission. Members will recall that further archaeological works were awaited in relation to some site allocations. The current position with these sites is set out in paragraphs 7.14

00:40:51To 7.19 in the report and revisions to policies have been made when necessary in the case of axmi underscore 09 and seat underscore 13a some further investigations are needed but our working assumption remains that these sites are suitable for allocation an infrastructure delivery plan is now included in the evidence library and sets out the infrastructure requirements to deliver the plan as they stand today but this document will need to be kept open um and updated as work moves forward it is essentially a fluid document anyway in that sense um but it's currently being updated to amalgamate um the needs arising from Marlcombe into the main document members will recall there was some discussion about the infrastructure requirements for Marlcombe at the second of september meeting so it's just bringing those areas together now into the final version or final version of consultation um as has been mentioned an updated statement of community involvement is also pended to report um this sets out how and when we will undertake consultation and needs to be kept up to date this is largely a procedural thing in terms of ensuring that's

00:42:00Up to date there are any minor changes proposed to some tweaks to wording within that but nothing fundamental in that. So turning to the recommendations, in summary, members are asked to agree the plan for consultation from the end of this week to the 26th of January, as said, thereby allowing two additional weeks over the requirement to address the clash with Christmas and New Year. Members are asked to grant delegated authority to myself in consultation with the chair to make any minor amendments to finalise the plan ahead of consultation, and also to endorse the infrastructure delivery plan for consultation purposes members are also asked to note the ongoing work on statements of community statements of common ground we're key consultees and stakeholders and grant delegated authority to myself in consultation with the chair to sign these members are also asked to agree the adopted updated statement of community involvement and also to agree to the further report that I've already mentioned on the water cycle study being brought forward to a committee following the end of the consultation period.

00:43:04So I make those recommendations. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Two questions, then. I have Councillor Arnott first. Okay, thank you, Councillor Arnott. Councillor Roy Collins, do you have any questions? Okay. Does anybody have just a second to help Roy with that, possibly? Any colleagues? If it's just possible very quickly. Thank you, Debbie. I don't think we have any other questions, any other members outside of committee. So coming into committee then, Councillor Faithfull was waving his hand around rather energetically several minutes ago. So Councillor Faithfull first, please.

00:43:57Thank you, Chair. Dunk as well as sewage treatment works does not feed into the River Otter. I believe I mentioned this before. It feeds into Madford Brook, which feeds into Madford River, which feeds into the culm about half a mile or quarter mile east of Hemioc.

00:44:20So there is an error I was also concerned that this is not a question, this is a comment the water cycle report doesn't have any mention of Cranbrook which is rather a lot of sewage That'll be because it's taken into account in the existing baseline of course Peter Other questions please Members, I saw Councillor Davey then Councillor Bailey then Councillor Ejo Thank you I've got a list actually So, the first one is, and I think the answer to this is probably yes, but I wasn't quite sure when I read the section on sustainable travel, which, as you know, is one of my bees in the bonnet.

00:45:05Does the sort of ambitions on that, do they apply to employment sites as well as residential sites? I couldn't find any reference and I thought we were going to put something in about this for demolition of existing buildings as a kind of last resort and a requirement for evidence before developers came to us and said well we want to demolish this and rebuild which I know is always their favourite thing but I had understood that we were going to put in something.

00:45:39I couldn't find it but maybe it's in there somewhere I have some some observations and some questions I'll keep the observations for later the water cycle study and it's really a 50% reduction in leakages by what was it 20 40 is that realistic and and in the short term I think over the next five years are hoping to achieve 10% given the failure of most water companies to deal with leaks. This is obviously in drinking water and water supply rather than sewage which as we know is also plagued with leaks. Are those really realistic and have we seen any plans or any evidence that Southwest Water think this is achievable also on conservation areas do we have any scoring criteria for this I know if we're looking at tree preservation order we we have a kind of scoring criterion and I just wondered if there's any way that that we have a kind of scoring mechanism for conservation areas to decide whether to designate an area as a conservation area. Finally, on page 153 in my

00:47:13Agenda pack, policy CCO2B talks about solar panels and heat pumps in homes being available or the easy connectivity being available. There's a suggestion that this is going to come in government regulation. But why not mandate those anyway? We've heard Councillor Collins talking about the amount of farmland being used for solar panels. And yet there are numerous, well, the majority of roofs in this country that don't have solar panels on them. And I just think a new build, solar panels should be there automatically. I think the government probably agrees but I just feel that maybe we shouldn't leave that one to chance and should just mandate that all new homes have to have solar panels um it just makes total sense it's better for the occupants um and uh might I don't think it's totally the answer but might take some of the pressure off farmland for solar farms um and it's something people always bring up Whenever we're talking about solar farms on farmland, people are asking, why not just have them on roofs?

00:48:43Okay, thank you, Councillor Davey. I'm going to come to Councillors Bailey and Jung for further questions before I ask Ed to respond. Councillor Bailey.

00:48:51Thank you, Chair. These arguments seem to be going round and round in circles. I have particular sympathy with our first speaker of today when he says there should be no development in the buffer zone because according to which authority you take advice from one authority which is a major one in Devon says well you can have possibly industrial sites playing fields allotments in the buffer zone is there a question here council well it's an observation and there will be a question.

00:49:28Bear with me, Chair. I'll take a while for that. I know we're in a rush, but I think we're in that rush.

00:49:33Thank you. So I have every sympathy with what he says there. Depending on who you ask, you get a different answer. So I would like to support what was proposed by this first speaker, that we make it absolutely clear in this plan, no development, which is quite simple to do. And the question is, therefore? The question is, are you going to do it? That's my question. Was that worth waiting for, Chair?

00:50:02Could I perhaps make a plea to committee to take the questions section in good faith rather than tagging on technical questions at the end? Are you going to answer my question, Chair? The question's been put, Brian. I think you'll find we considered it in the September meeting, but the question has been put. Councillor Jung. It's not good enough.

00:50:21Thank you, Chair. congratulations to the team for bringing all this together every Local Plan I look at it seems to be growing all the time and well done on that regarding the maps do I take it that we're going to have the old map and then the new map so we can compare one with the other obviously we need two computers to be able to do that but some people are lucky enough to have that water use reducing on new builds but existing dwellings I presume that's going to stay the same there's a lot of talk that we'll have to go back on all the old housing and make sure that they don't don't use any more water than the new percentage the water cycle study as far as I'm concerned needs a lot more work on it and can you confirm that this will be be included in the public consultation so people can give their views on the water cycle report as well as the Local Plan thank you okay mr Freeman omnibus number one please uh thank you chair um

00:51:51Yes I've come back to Councillor Davey comments um I assume in terms of ambitions for sustainable travel you mean promoting walking and cycling public transport use yes so that applies equally to employment developments um I can't remember the exact provisions in the plan but obviously we want to encourage people to walk and cycle to work use public transport and make provision at employment spaces to facilitate that through provision of cycle parking, EV charging points, public transport connections, all of those things.

00:52:18So yes, it's equally important at destinations like that as it is at people's homes. In terms of issues around demolition of existing buildings, so strategic policy CCO6, I think it is, relates to embodied carbon and requires justification for demolition of existing buildings. Do you have a page number on that? Page 135 in the plan. So hopefully that's adequately covered in that. Is a 50% reduction in leakages realistic?

00:52:56It's a question I'm happy to take away and talk to South Westwater about. I know from previous discussions they are putting a lot of investment into addressing leakages. within their network and that's seen as an easy win as it were but quite an expensive one I suspect so I'm not really the right person to answer that question but we can certainly try and bring that forward in the further report on the water cycle study further to further conversations I hope to have with southwest water in the meantime. Conservation areas I'm not sure if there's so much a scoring matrix but there's quite a lot of guidance out there about the designation of conservation areas obviously each conservation area is is different and unique in terms of what makes it important in heritage terms so it's probably quite difficult to have a scoring criteria in the same way that we do for for trees and tree preservation orders so I don't think there is one in in the same way as for trees but there's quite a lot of guidance out there

00:53:59Um on that uh and obviously through the heritage strategy which we'll come on to we want to work with communities in terms of identifying those suitable areas for conservation area designation and reviewing the existing ones and the management plans and documents that relate to them um so the panels and heat pumps yes the policy cco2b I think it is um so yeah I mean there is an issue there which I think is flagged up in a comment in the document in that we're waiting uh the new future home standard to be published um so you might recall in the previous meeting I can't remember the date we had quite a lengthy conversation as a debate as the committee over the requirements there the intention had been to require sort of connectivity for solar panels and heat pumps so that they could be added at the lowest possible cost but not to actually require them because the danger was that if we require them then uh developers would get their points scored under the building regulations from those and not to deliver other things that were perhaps

00:55:03More integral to the build in terms of insulation measures and things like that so it was considered that we could get best bang for our buck as it were um by uh not requiring them to actually be fitted but requiring all of the wiring and supporting mechanisms and things to be in place the new future home standard may change that because it may require them to actually install them or in which case that might not be the the right approach um but we don't know until that comes out so uh the policy as is as it was after that debate as things stand um we'll have to see um how things evolve uh and whether or not a modification is needed through the examination process to reflect where government policy gets to in the meantime I think the positive thing is it's all heading in the right direction of requirements being more and more in terms of moving towards low carbon housing and delivering mechanisms to secure that. So hopefully it's heading in the right direction either way, whether that's coming through our policy or

00:56:07Through changes to building regulations. Coming to Councillor Bailey then, so this question about no development within 400 metres of the buffer zone. As the Chair has said, we did actually have an option in a report that came to you on the 2nd of september when we were debating EXMO20 the report set out for I think it's four different options for how we could deal with that site um one of which was to uh draw the boundaries to exclude that 400 meter zone um as I said already I think that there are issues with that in terms of technically it's it's the 400 meter zone is about residential development within that area so is it therefore justified and reasonable necessary to to restrict other uses within that area but also this issue about where the access road comes in from because as you know from previous discussions about this site the access road needs to come in in that direction so if you take that 400 meter zone out of the allocation then there's no access to that site um which then calls into question whether or not it's

00:57:12Is viable and deliverable without an access that's adequate to to serve the needs of the development um so my advice then and it remains is is to continue to include that area within the allocation and the settlement boundary with the wording in the policy that makes it very clear we shouldn't have residential development in that area we could look at tweaking the the wording of that if if if members want in terms of perhaps making that stricter um but ultimately development coming through in that area will have to be subject to Habitat Regulations assessment based on the detailed design and the detailed proposal so those issues will all be considered through that process um later uh so if we move on to Councillor Jung's questions um so I assume in terms of old map new map you mean in terms of the policies map um so yeah so the policies map for the existing adopted Local Plan is still online and accessible so people will be able to use that alongside the new one and yeah as you say if they've got two screens or two devices they can

00:58:21Can do a comparison to their heart's content if that's what they want to do in terms of reducing water usage then as I said before we don't have any control over water usage in existing dwellings and the new dwellings that are coming forward and requiring that additional optional requirement through planning policy that's then delivered through the building regulations regime but there is an aspiration in the water industry generally which I think the water cycle study notes to bring down water usage in existing properties but I think that's that's more through encouragement and advising people and and that kind of route it's not something we we're involved with as a planning authority so we'll have to leave that to the to companies and off what and and whoever else is involved in that um in terms of the water cycle study so yes people will be able to comment on the water cycle study and all the evidence documents through the consultation process um and and I think this is where we've reached with the water cycle study is there's a need for that wider consultation and engagement if there are

00:59:25Things coming through that work that require addressing in terms of a revised version of the study and additional work that we need to get hasconing to do then we can discuss that in that additional meeting uh next year once we've got that feedback in terms of the consultation and secure any further work that's needed in relation to that area at that time so uh you know I think as far as the existing commission is concerned that's the final report but it doesn't mean that we can't commission further work in the future if that's what members want to do okay thank you Mr. Freeman, Councillor Collins, is it a question?

01:00:04Go ahead. Microphone, please, Roy. My cousin's farm, Colley's farm, Giddisham. That is beside the River Otter, and they have a lot of flat fields which flood regularly. These fields, they do not ever need to put any artificial manure on them or farmyard manure, because when it floods, There's a lot of nutrients in that water that fertilize the fields. Now, I would like to ask a question. Honnerton Sewage Works does not cope with the sewage it's got already.

01:00:50In the 1970s, there was a sewage embargo and there were no new houses. No estates were allowed to be built in Honnerton because of the embargo. Can you not put an embargo on Honiton Sewage Works?

01:01:09Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Collins. I'm going to answer that one myself rather than coming to Mr Freeman. As I said to the gentleman from the Otter Valley Association earlier, the evidence, as you say quite rightly, is that the Honiton Works is not coping, is well over capacity. We need to talk to Southwest Water and understand the timing of when they're going to be investing in expanding that plant's capacity.

01:01:31And if the answer is not soon enough, then development in that catchment will be delayed until that investment is made. Have I got that right, Mr. Freeman? Yes, that's correct. And that's what the policy in the draft plan in front of you today secures. So hopefully that assuages some concern there for you, Councillor Collins. There are developments. developments Taylor Wimpy and Hain Lane which are pushing ahead are going to be applications sent in so people can they be turned down now until the sewage works is modernized so so we've got a mixture obviously we've got uh sites for example that Hain Lane that have already got consent to being built out um so obviously didn't get objections from southwest water at that time to those so we can't stop those from building out the consent they've already got permission for the new applications coming through we need to assess in light of the evidence we've now got and advice from southwest water and we can potentially reject them uh if there's not adequate capacity in sewage treatment works by the time that development comes forward or there's

01:02:49The option of the gramping conditions approach that we've been taking through planning committee on a number of sites whereby we grant planning permission but we make it very clear in the conditions that the development can't come forward it can't be occupied until there is adequate capacity in the wastewater treatment system to accommodate the flows from that development so those those are the options open to you and and just to be very clear again the the last recommendation uh that's in front of us today recommendation recommendation six is very explicitly that we receive a further paper considering exactly those measures in the new year as soon as we've been able to speak to southwest water and the environment agency so it is very much on the agenda for us to be using exactly those measures um just to reassure everyone if that message hadn't got across coming back to my list then I have councillors fitzgerald then Fernley, then Levine.

01:03:47I did see your hand, Councillor Fitzgerald. Councillor Faithfull, I'm having a bad day with names today. I will come back to you once everybody's had the first bite.

01:04:00Thank you, Chair. Thank you for having me back on the committee. It's been a while. And I reiterate what Councillor Jung said about the clearly a huge amount of work has been going on to bring forward both the water cycle study and the Reg 19 changes. Just looking at strategic policy ARO2 on water quality and efficiency and looking at point A in that 1, 2, 3 and 4 which says that planning commission will not be granted for any proposal which because of inadequate provision of water services or inadequate or untimely provision of Foul water and surface water drainage and disposal would cause pollution, result in deterioration of the water body, overload the sewer network, or result in an increase in flood risk.

01:04:55Do I understand that this is a step change compared with the previous plan, where because of having this water cycle study, we anticipate that we will be able, as a planning body, to turn down planning permissions, because we already have the evidence ourselves that the site is unable to cope on the bases listed here. And is that, because I know that we've obviously been looking at these things with live planning commissions already and trying to understand where we can leverage some kind of influence or push back on development where we believe that the sewage network can't cope, but we're reliant upon Southwest Water as a consultee to tell us whether or not they think it can cope, whether or not our observations tally with that.

01:05:58So that's my question. Is this categorically different because we're using our own evidence?

01:06:05Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Fitzgerald. Councillor Fernley. okay chair you've given us an awful lot of stuff to look at this time so it makes putting the questions into any sort of sensible order quite tricky we talk about the water cycle study that more work needs to be done on it how are we going to contribute to that um for example I have a question that um the assessment of groundwater on page 34 groundwater bodies using data was using data from 2013 to 18 why aren't there up-to-date figures for that it talks about housing numbers in broad crest um I think it was meaning how many are going to be built in the planned period with a number there is something like 90 and yet in the planned period it's going to be over 130 so I'd be a bit worried if the whole water cycle study was that far out if I've read that right so are we going to ask lots of questions now or do we email in or do we have another way of doing it

01:07:30To be sure it's not going to be through the consultation that we ask our questions? We talked about, the water cycle study talks about increase in use of water after the pandemic. This asks questions of what the population is doing in this area. Have we got so many more people that are now working from home and not travelling out of area? hence why waste water has gone up in this oh sorry why use of water has gone up in this area question on the Pebblebed Heath if we've got this much trouble happening in this area through vehicle movements have we thought about having a EULA zone in East Devon to prevent or to improve the quality of the vehicles that are actually driving past the pebble bed pace.

01:08:26So there's a selection. Thank you. Councillor Fernie, I think. Councillor Levine. May I? You may.

01:08:41Thank you, Chair. My thoughts actually were decided by the lack of coffee in my cup. In the water study, we talk about lack of water, lack of rain. Why aren't we encouraging new houses to harvest rainwater? Have rainwater sellers or rainwater baths? Because it seems to me that we are going to be short of water in the future. The study says so. So we need to encourage that.

01:09:17And my second question is rather silly. In the statement of community involvement, we have a little section about councillors and what we do. And I wonder whether it's possible to clarify that when councillors sit on committees, we do not represent our wards, but are here for the benefits of the whole district.

01:09:43Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor Levine. I think that's probably enough questions for Omnibus No. 2. Mr. Freeman?

01:09:57Thank you, Chair. So, yes, if I go back to Councillor Fitzgerald's comments about water quality, I think it is a sea change in terms of having our own evidence, because we've been entirely reliant on southwest water to tell us where there's capacity and when there isn't so having that information ourselves is uh is is much better I think um in terms of that assessment um we obviously will still need to consult with southwest water in terms of specific proposals but it does give us an evidence base to push back against them if they're suggesting that there is capacity and our report suggests there isn't um which I know has always been a concern members have had is how much can you trust what southwest water telling you when obviously it's in their interest to connect more properties to the to their network um so I I think that's helpful um I think the approach though won't be fundamentally different um I think the preference should be to grant consent where we can and put in a gramping condition if if necessary

01:11:09But the gramping condition is only appropriate if we can be assured that capacity will be available during the term of that planning permission so um if if we get to a position where um southwest water's proposals for upgrading that sewage treatment work are not for say five years time from when we're looking to grant that consent and we're granting a consent that's got to be implemented within three years then it may well be appropriate to just say well there isn't going to be capacity during the life of this permission so we just have to refuse it in the meantime there will be other cases and the cases we've had so far I think have been cases where the infrastructure is going to come forward within perhaps 18 a year 18 months and so we've been granting the consent given it's a three-year consent but with a grampian condition so I think that's the distinction um but yes I think it does give us great information and it'd be really interesting to have uh particular comments of the environment agency as a an independent body

01:12:09In terms of this work as well so that's I think part of the thinking is obviously by doing this consultation we can have everybody's thoughts on this work there might be a few things that need ironing out in terms of it but the fundamental recommendations that are informing this Local Plan I think are clear and those have been incorporated in into the plan so I don't think it's so much this additional work in terms of all to cycle study is going to necessarily shape the Local Plan it perhaps is shaping our approach in terms of planning applications our liaison with southwest water development of this pipeline of projects versus our housing supply position and things like that so that's why I think it's it's appropriate for us to consult on the on the water cycle study and take that out into the public domain now and pick up those issues in that further report in the new year so hopefully that answers that if I turn to council firm these comments um so I mean if members have got comments on the water cycle study and they're very welcome to

01:13:17Email them through to me and I can collate those separately from the wider consultation um I I think my preference is at the end of the consultation we'll obviously go through all the responses wherever they've come from produce this report and then we can agree what additional work if any is needed and go back to hasconing at that point as members will be aware the water cycle study has been a long process and there's been a lot of to and fro between us as officers and hasconing um but that doesn't mean we've necessarily picked up on absolutely everything in every corner of the district where that there are issues um so that local knowledge and expertise would be really helpful in terms of informing this work and making sure we we get this right um so but we need the consultation to to achieve that fundamentally um but the the housing numbers data should all be correct in there it's all come from us um that we've given to them so whether there's a disparity between sort of numbers in terms of allocations and taking

01:14:18Into account um windfall sites possibly um we can look into that and and discuss that um perhaps off offline as it were um but by all means email in comments there um in terms of the pepperwood heaths and the air quality I mean I think our initial thought when this issue came to us was was that much of the solution was a move to electric vehicles and reducing emissions in that area and obviously um from I think it's 2030 all new cars have to be electric vehicles anyway so in some respects we perhaps thought you know those kind of changes would would very much help and they probably will in the future um but there's a need for for wider action than that um certainly in the short term until we are all driving around in electric vehicles and then there wouldn't be uh that issue um but that's going to take time because even after 2030 there'll be lots of petrol and diesel vehicles still on the road for many years after that I suspect but obviously the

01:15:21Impacts will start to reduce at that point so that's all being taken into account in terms of the work that we're doing um but obviously it has quite wide impacts because obviously a lot of developments in Sidmouth and even further east from that drives across the Pebblebed Heaths to get to Exeter so it's not just those developments that are close to the Pebblebed Heaths itself it has wider connotations um so so we need to develop those mitigation measures that are mentioned in in the work that the consultants have done and just do that extra level of detail to hopefully get sign off in terms of the Habitat Regulations um turning to council levine's questions rainwater harvesting I think matt was hopefully checking in the plan because I'm pretty sure we've got something in there about rainwater harvesting um yes so in uh strategic policy aro2 uh water quality and efficiency uh point c refers to all developments should wherever possible seek opportunities to implement water efficiency water storage and water recycling measures all new dwellings should and this then brings in the

01:16:31Water efficiency standard so um so that would include water efficiency and storage methods like water butts um on on new build properties uh and and commercial development so we look to secure those through that means that policy um in terms of the statement of community involvement I certainly agree that councillors sitting on planning committee are representing the district as a whole not not just the district I have to check as to where there's a reference to that or whether or not we need to tweak that um so um leave that one with me and I will check the wording that we've used but I certainly agree that members sitting on planning committee are not just representing their ward thank you chair thank you mr Freeman uh do any members who've not yet asked a question want to do so please Councillor Ledger thanks very much jeff um ed on the air quality mitigation strategy when is recommendation two listed on page 29 going to be completed because obviously that has an effect on recommendation four that we're bringing through

01:17:37You mean the recommendations in the substantive report so the mitigation strategy we obviously need to have that for submission of the plan our deadline being June next year to submit the plan under the transition arrangements in the NPPF so we need to bring that obviously through committee when you've hopefully finally sign off the plan for submission so that's the timeline for work so I'm just trying to review the recommendations and how it has bearing on that recommendation to his minor moments the reason I ask is if two doesn't happen before the submission of next year then there are obviously recommendation says that there would have to be amendments made to the plan and so if that's not done in a timely manner then recommendation for it's going to lead to a delay in the overall plan being submitted so my expectation is that the changes that we've made to the plan that I mentioned that refer to Habitat Regulations additional policy support for electric vehicles charging points etc is what we will need to do

01:19:03In terms of changes to the plan itself the ongoing work is about a mitigation strategy similar to sort of the approach we've had with the purple beds and the accessory over recreational impacts of developing a strategy that then we can collect financial contributions to through planning obligations to then secure that mitigation off the back of development which shouldn't facilitate significant changes to the plan itself if any um so that's that's my expectation obviously I can't guarantee anything until we've completed that work but that's that's my expectation okay thank you Councillor Ledger Councillor Blakey thank you chair um I'm somewhat concerned that the water company, Southwest Water, let's call them that, are going to have the opportunity to hold developers' developments to ransom on the provision of pollable water and also particularly on wastewater treatment, because these are quite clearly going to be very necessary in the future, and I'm just wondering, are we going to find ourselves essentially funding their operation through developer contributions, rather than those contributions being used on the things that perhaps traditionally they would have been used for, simply to get them to do what should be done?

01:20:34Do we have any way of mitigating against that possibility of being held to ransom by the water company?

01:20:49Thank you, Councillor Blakey. Any further questions before I come to Ed? Peter, do you want to come back? Just quick, getting back to my earlier question. so Cranbrook is not part of this because there's four expansions of Cranbrook but they're not seem to be part of any of this is that correct it's not in the wake water cycle study yes thank you so I mean in terms of Cranbrook it should all be in the baseline because as I say it's forward looking so it's looking at the allocations of growth and development that's in this Local Plan and the impacts of that obviously Cranbrook uh to an extent is already built and then there's obviously the planned growth in the Cranbrook plan which should all feature in the baseline assessment in the motorcycle study so um it it has all been taken into account I appreciate it's perhaps not as clear as it could be in the documents and that might be something we need to ultimately go back to hasconing on um but it I'm confident it's all been taken into account

01:21:58Um in terms of Councillor Blokey's point um so developers pay uh contributions through connection charges towards uh water infrastructure it's not done through planning obligations because obviously southwest water is a separate company it's not a public company or provider um so we don't have control over what they they charge um but my understanding is that that's all controlled by off waters as the um what's the word regulator of of water companies um so they can only charge within a reasonable amount based on what off what um control um so they shouldn't be able to exploit that situation okay uh final call for questions then as I sense we are petering out a little bit so I've got Councillor Jung then Councillor Levine Councillor Parr raise your hand now or hold your peace okay those three then and after that we will move into debate thank you members uh yeah just going over uh that um I have seen um developers contributions being asked by the water company are you saying that they wouldn't be able to get uh one or six agreements

01:23:21For uh for any um improvements to the um sewage system um through you chair my understanding is it should all be done through their connection charges these days um you might have historically seen them um when when things were different but under the current regime it should be connection charges outside of planning Councillor Levine thank you chair my question is actually about it's going to go the plan is going to go out into consultation we've heard today from the public that a lot of people have got reservations and problems with the plan as it is one parish in black dance has told me that they intend to go for a judicial review of the Local Plan so my question actually is what are we going to do with all the objections and can the objections derail us to such an extent that we're going to [member of the public] the deadlines thank you Councillor Levine Councillor Parr do you want to ask your question then we'll come to Ed yes I noticed that quite a few of the policies have

01:24:36Somebody's deleted part of the title so obviously that is going to be corrected is it sorry is that a particular policy well quite a few of them going through seem to have had I think part of the issue um that I've noticed yesterday going through it is that because the banners for the policies are in blue and then when someone's amended the title of the policy because it's done as track changes it's come out in blue so you've got blue text on a blue background they are slightly different shades of blue but they can be quite hard to read so I think one that's got up on screen at the moment is um strategic policy aro2 I think it just reads as water gap efficiency but I think there is a word in blue in between isn't there which is water quality and efficiency is what it will read but unfortunately because of the way the track changes has worked it's it's not very clear we will try and make that clearer in the in the version that goes out and obviously as I mentioned there'll be a tabulated version of the

01:25:42Changes as well which will make that clearer thank you very much and then one very minor thing under the parking standards it says that cycle parking requirements secure and undercover for a residential dwelling should be one space per bedroom and then when you go further on and you find out how much parking for cycles is going to be provided in businesses it's for instance It's one space for six staff.

01:26:15So I think there's something a bit wrong there. Okay, thank you, Councillor Parr. Could you pick up those few questions then, please? Yes, so just coming back to Councillor Levine's point in terms of delays. I mean, at this point, at Reg 19 stage, we're at the point where we shouldn't be amending the plan further, essentially. So we are doing a consultation to collect comments. we'll obviously collate them um and bring them to your attention but the intention would then be to agree the plan and submit it for examination um so it shouldn't hold us up um in that sense obviously how long it will take us to collate those comments and get them in a position for plan submission will depend on how many we receive um but if we finish the consultation at the end of january we've got a clear sort of four or five months before we need to submit the plan um well four months um and a few weeks um to do that so that should be sufficient time to

01:27:19Enable us to collate the comments bring them through the committee hopefully get the committee sign if it then has to go to full council to then be agreed for for submission um but obviously all of those people that are still concerned about the plan as you say have the opportunity through the examination process to be heard by the government appointed inspector and have their views considered through that process and obviously we've considered their views through through this process and have have documented that and those have been discussed in this forum so I think as said earlier I think people have had every opportunity to be heard through this process but there remain opportunities through the examination in front of the government appointed inspector to be heard again and the inspector can recommend that we make modifications to the plan to address those concerns as they see fit so there's still a fair way to go in terms of consideration of views um but I'm confident uh that we can meet the timetable as tight as it is

01:28:20Um based on on where we are if we can progress the consultation um and yes so in terms of parking standards uh I haven't got them in front of me but um I think it was once I think you quoted one space per bedroom at homes and one space per six staff um so yeah I mean I think that's I don't know if matt wants to come in on this in terms of where these standards have come from but I think in terms of uh cycle parking um we're trying to be realistic about I suppose how many people cycle to work um but ensure that there's adequate provision so I think that's based on some national standards or guidance in terms of what's realistic whereas at people's homes I think there's a realistic prospect that one person per bedroom you're going to need the storage space um to have that number of cycles stored at your home um but realistically um a relatively small proportion of people are in a position where they they live close enough to work to cycle or are able to cycle if you're a

01:29:34Delivery driver or lots of occupations that won't be feasible in terms of tools that you need to take around with you if you're a plumber or or someone like that or even even coming to an office job that things sometimes you need to bring with you or the distances traveled won't permit that so I think I'd like to think it'd be more than that I'd like to think more people would cycle to work but I think realistically um that that's probably quite um quite a high standard I don't think one in six people in this building for example cycle here I think sadly it's probably very low um and probably quite a central location so I think that's that's realistic okay thank you mr Freeman um I feel slightly like I'm about to open the floodgates then but um we come to debate and I will come outside of committee first to Councillor Arnott who's been waiting patiently uh thank you very much sure it's working um so thank you very much chair indeed thank you

01:30:42To all the public speakers thank you to the committee um I think it's worth pointing out to members of the public these lovely people get no extra allowance for doing this unbelievably stressful time-consuming frankly unpopular job so thank you all so you'd be disappointed chair if I didn't address the matter of the of the water report and southwest water so on the 22nd of February 2024 this council declared a motion of no confidence in southwest water I was very keen to associate myself with that and one of the reasons that I understood then that perhaps other members didn't know is in your report so it's on page 593 of the report or if you've got the water report open itself from Haskoning open it's the last couple of pages and it is entitled summary of consultations with southwest water okay so that covers a period from october 2022 until effectively the present day the interactions between hasconing and southwest water now I'm not going to doubt that hasconing were doing their best in trying to get blood from a stone from

01:32:10Southwest water but if you look at the first phase of consultation from october 22 to march 23 information that should have been supplied within 40 days actually came very late if you look at the second phase this was that was just so if you look at actually consultation three again you've got southwest water swerving bobbing weaving trying to answer questions put by hasconing on behalf of this local authority I should say in ways in which they favored follow-up meetings were meant to have taken place however something seems to have gone awry there consultation four then and by the way all this time the clock is running down all this time we are giving planning permissions all this time we are developing our own Local Plan when we should have had this information from South West Water two or three years ago and we've had to really push them through our officers to do so and go to the extent of declaring a motion of no confidence in them. The final line in the document from Haskoning says the data provided by South West

01:33:22Water did not provide clarity on the comments initially raised. As such the additional data provided by South West Water following consultation on the WCS report was not incorporated into a revised version of the WCS chair. South West Water have led this council and Haskoning operating on our behalf a merry dance and what worries me now is that in all good faith Mr Freeman and I have no doubt about it has said repeatedly that he will be asking further questions to help us with the further development of this Local Plan from southwest water who we've already passed the motion of confidence in and in whom in this report that is fully justified and I'm saying that now because I do understand chair that there is a recommendation that we need to bring back a report to look at um I think it's recommendation five or six forgive me I haven't got that page of the agenda open.

01:34:24That's good. We should look at this report, but it is an unbelievably unfortunate confluence of events that on the very day this committee is being asked to make progress to the second stage of Regulation 19. It's also being asked to consider the water cycle report. I mean, that's not our fault, but forgive me to our friends from Exmouth and Escape over there, it looks terrible. I know, Chair and Mr Freeman, have done everything to fight to get this information out of them.

01:34:58But the problem from this council, and I'm going to have to put this to scrutiny, I think, is that we've been around this road once before under previous administrations. There was a water study report, I believe came forward in 2010, that was completely ignored in relation to the development of a previous Local Plan. so what I had tried to do desperately as leader of this council was make sure that never happened again and yet here we are it's not being ignored but it's incredibly late for these hard-working members of this committee to consider properly I don't know what the answer is chair we are where we are I admire enormously the progress personally you have made in pushing forward this Local Plan we have to do it we are under extraordinary some would say ridiculous constraints and demands from central government on this Councillor Fitzgerald asked the absolute key question here which was really because of this report are we now able at last to summon up some courage and actually refuse speculative planning applications on the basis of it and

01:36:10I'm not sure we're clear on that even now so I don't know if that's a helpful contribution chair but it's from the heart thank you clearly thank you leader mr chairman I just we have been going for nearly two hours whether we should have had a break so my understanding is because we're in the middle of an item that is frowned upon so [member of the public] advice is that we act through it I mean if members desperately need two minutes are you going to put a motion of no confidence in me Mr Hunter no if we do have ten minutes then obviously we'll discuss okay so in which case at that point as Councillor Faithfull has raised the point do members need five minutes bearing in mind okay in which case then we will adjourn until midday but as Mr Hunter has just said members you cannot discuss with each other with members of the public the business that we are looking at now at all for any reason please um so we will pick up again

01:37:26At midday thank you we are just waiting for Councillor Bailey to rejoin us members when we

01:45:28Will get started again okay thank you members we're going to get started again please um perhaps

01:46:44The grapes could take a seat. Thank you very much. So we were just outside committee, having just heard from Councillor Arna. Councillor Collins, do you have any comments to make, please? Yes, thank you, Chair. I've watched councils abroad, Australia, Canada, United States and all these councils they run this water and sewage which Southwest Water does and they've got full control over everything we need to get these Southwest Water brought back into public ownership so that we've got control and one thing I did watch with the United States was their sewage works.

01:47:48They turn their sewage into fertilizer and they sell it in bags to the public. So there's a valuable resource which is just going down our rivers and polluting everything. Maybe you could get southwest water to look into this. Because it seems wrong that you've got a valuable resource being wasted.

01:48:16Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor Collins. Coming into committee then, members who would like to speak on this item. I have Councillor Davey, then Councillor Jung, please.

01:48:33Thank you, Chair. One small one. On page 301, it talks about housing eaves being constructed in such a way as to facilitate nesting by house martins. It doesn't mention swallows. I just feel that should be both. And, I mean, it's policy anyway. And it really doesn't matter to the swallows whether they're classed as house martins or not. But I just thought it would just make sense as they are both nesting birds that use eaves.

01:49:13My next point is about EXMO20. My understanding was that the 400-meter buffer from the pale-baked heaths would restrict development of any sort. And it's been suggested that it could be employment or community use in there. Employment use I'm not so concerned about since it would be daytime. We could place restrictions or conditions in planning on the timings and lighting and so on. But I'm a bit more concerned about the suggestion it could be community use.

01:49:54If you site some kind of community hall in there, you're going to have people coming and going. You're going to have lights going on all the time. Ditto if it was a playing field. You could have floodlights that are going to be disturbing to wildlife. So I'm kind of more inclined to go with what Councillor Bailey was suggesting, that we simply don't have any development within that 400-metre buffer zone, so that it is left pristine and possibly further developed for wildlife.

01:50:41Okay, thank you, Councillor Davey. Councillor Jung? Thank you, Chair. Just to come back on a couple of points that our leader came up with and from the other councillor, I've just heard today that Budleigh has lost its water quality from excellent to good, which is very bad news, seeing we've got a blue flag there.

01:51:17And the other issue is that we are about the only country in the world with a commercialised water and sewage company. In the old days, in the 1950s, they were run by councils. They were all being underfunded and losing a lot of money on it. So it was agreed that it became water boards and then the water boards became these commercial companies. it's peculiar to this country but I don't think this council have the power to change that unfortunately and of course the American model of publicly owned water boards not a universal solution to everything particularly if you ask people in Flint who got quite a lot of lead in their water supply as a result of it I don't know who I saw first so I'm going to go with Charlotte and then Brian please thank you Brian um so uh just picking up on uh what Councillor Davey just said about EXMO20 in the buffer zone um he's pretty much said what I was going to say but the other thing that I would mention is that

01:52:30Um we have a bit of a problem with um antisocial behavior um people driving cars and donutting in the car park at Lime Kiln which is extra problematic because we're not allowed well because it's in a well all sorts of protected areas being right next to the law it does not have lighting and I understand anecdotally that the police cannot put in cameras because there's no lighting um to actually uh um try and uh do something about the problem um so that's just another consideration that I would add in terms of uh the the development that what may be what may be in scope for development within that buffer zone I also appreciate what ed said earlier about it potentially creating a huge problem for the access road if we were to bring it outside of the plan area.

01:53:36So I don't necessarily have a particularly strong view on that, but I do think that I would like to echo the concerns that Olly has made about potential problems and think about how it may be that we can actually mitigate some of these further down the line with the actual planning application that comes up. so that was one thing and the other thing I wanted to uh put on the table was um access to liverton business park coming off Salterton road and I understand the the answers that ed gave earlier to public questions about this um however I I'm I question why we're ruling it out at this point because liverton business park to my knowledge and admittedly I haven't looked at it in, and I know you did a lot of work in terms of looking at the economic sites in the area a couple of years ago.

01:54:38It seems to me that this is probably one of the biggest, if not the biggest, growth site in Exmouth. it's most ideally located to my mind of all the industrial areas in Exmouth for this this expansion what why would we count out at this stage in the game making it as viable as possible and I do understand the point about the the the visuals as you access and I I travel along that road very regularly you know I certainly don't want to see great big three four story buildings with you know more burger concessions um and so on as you come into Exmouth that would spoil the the the views however working back from that I just don't understand why we're counting out having an access to that part of the site because surely it's up to the developers to work out something that would be affordable for them. Thank you.

01:55:45Okay, thank you Councillor Schell. Councillor Bailey. Thank you Chair. Regarding what Charlotte's just said, I got rather heavily involved in the last planning application for Living Business Park where the county highways decided that there was no need for traffic lights because there wasn't sufficient traffic in a word but they did extend the entrance which did help and a dedicated lane to go to Billy Sulton my understanding from the officers and the councillors at the time was if there was to be any more extensions in the Liverpool and Business Park that they would consider it would be essential to put in traffic lights however to add to the confusion the application has gone opposite McDonald's and on their plans there's a roundabout so pay your money and take your choice as it stands Chair thank you now back to the plot it's not very often that I agree with our leader but I'm pleased to say that on this occasion I do agree entirely with everything he says which is probably going to happen once from his point of view

01:56:56And mine but it's good that we're all heading in the same direction I thank Ollie and Charlotte for their support on the suggestion that came from one of our residents are first speaker. Hopefully it could be adopted without too much trouble. Now, regarding the water report, the general consensus I'm getting from the room is there's little or no confidence in this water report. Having said that, that doesn't give it justification and enough legs, as far as I can see, to be part of our decision-making because of the very fact that it's not got all the details. We all know the problem, with sewerage it's massive in this area especially on the coast but that's not addressed in the report so I don't think we can rely on it to make a decision when we all know the truth thank you chair thank you Councillor Bailey um I I want to push back on what you just said about the water cycle study um I I think there have been some fair comments made today um in some respects

01:58:01But in quite and specifically related to the situation in in Exmouth which isn't necessarily all to do with issues that are covered by the Environment Agency methodology that we've followed here there have been some legitimate points made there in relation to Exmouth but I've not heard a word of critique about its conclusions in the rest of the district not a not a single word you know it's it's it's evidence here that um the stations in um what Honiton's already 50 over capacity um mr Freeman will have the list somewhere and will correct me if necessary but it's it's saying that there are seven sewage treatment plants that do not have the capacity to cope with this Local Plan and therefore we are going away to say to southwest water right what are you doing about this? I just can't accept the point that the study is fundamentally unusable. It's not. I will accept there are some points that we need to look at in terms of it.

01:59:04I think there's a fair point to be made that there's maybe more things that we could be looking at, but actually as a paper that looks into generally the state of the sewage system in East Devon it makes some very valid and very robust conclusions about the lack of capacity of southwest water I again I will accept there's perhaps more that we need to do now and indeed we've already heard about that further report that's going to come and look specifically at the policy measures after those conversations with southwest water but as an assessment of what it has set out to assess um I think there's an awful lot of good that can come from that and I think there's an awful lot of way that we can give it in our decision making process here today um and and you know that that's my view and and others will draw their own um but I think it's come to some really really important conclusions and even if there's more work to be done we can't lose sight of those we now have a

02:00:03Document that we can you know wax helpless water over their head with and say look some independent scientists say your system is inadequate do something about it and we can take it to the environment agency and we can take it to off war and we can say look we did the work because you wouldn't now back us and they haven't got a choice because we've got independent scientific evidence that says they need to they need to do their job as the regulators um so you know I I'll accept there's some improvements that maybe we can make and some more work that we can do but I think it's a really important document and a big milestone for this Authority in how we deal with the sewage crisis for the residents of East Devon I'll get off my soapbox at that point does anybody else want a silly question of course other people want to speak who wants to speak next council of faithful I just realized whether it should have been as a question but just

02:01:10Looking in the infrastructure whatever report thing that's the one got rather distracted way of the water cycles and X 20 and whatever interested about this Sidmouth to our three cycle way is that actually going to happen do we know how to work how to what extent are we gonna see anything coming of that because it's been talked about for a very long time and also intrigued by the proposal to extend off recent Mary police station which I'm not sure or three times I can speak to Autry Town Council but we own the building and I don't think we've heard anything and I'm not sure where they extend it to but so I'm intrigued by that. I don't know if there's anything we have to speak to the police about that do we?

02:02:16I imagine it's probably something that they have told us that they need to cope with the impacts of development. Mr Freeman?

02:02:23Thank you Jay. I mean yes that's right. I mean this has been collated from discussions with various infrastructure providers, including in terms of the Sidmouth to, well, the Otter Trail, the Sidmouth to Ottery cycle route, with Devon County Council as the highway authority, with the police, with the health authority, all sorts of bodies. So it's a very long shopping list or Christmas list this time of year, maybe, of things that we need as a district fundamentally need to support the growth that's that's in this um Local Plan um the members will recall the previous infrastructure delivery plan I think we had a 70 million pound funding gap just of the priority one projects alone um so I'm not going to sit here and say that all of this will be delivered um because realistically it just won't be um it's just not um achievable um but um there are projects in here that will be critical to uh delivery of the growth that's in the plan which we will need to deliver and then there are other projects that are um less critical

02:03:30Shall we say um and so a lot of this will come down to future spend decisions in terms of how we spend our sill um that we collect as growth comes forward uh whatever funding we can bid for and tap into over the life of the plan and what monies other bodies like Devon County Council, the police and other authorities put into the mix. This isn't all for us to fund and deliver.

02:03:56This is about how we can work with all of those bodies to deliver the infrastructure that's needed over the period of the plan. So I can't give you any commitments as to whether or not those things will be delivered, but it's an aspiration to deliver them. And we need to work with our partners and through funding agencies to try and ensure that they are.

02:04:18Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Colleagues? Okay, I'm going to pose a question to committee at this point then. We have had so far, to my count, three members of committee saying that we need to revisit the question around the 400-metre buffer zone. As Mr. Freeman and I have already mentioned, we had considered that as an option at our September 2nd meeting meeting and committee didn't choose to make any amendments along those lines there is an outstanding question therefore given the constitutional provision about changing our mind on things and there's a question about whether or not that applies and if committee is minded to look at making a recommendation on that issue and then we need to take short adjournment for mr hunter to consult with mr Freeman um and make a ruling um on whether that constitutional provision applies or not um so I'm looking for a sounding from members as to whether folks are minded to seriously consider that issue Councillor Fitzgerald microphone please so as I said I I have no strong feelings about whether or not it stays within the uh the buffer zone stays within the site

02:05:40Or not um and I had a couple of outstanding questions which if ed is able to answer or speak to some of those um now I think that would be helpful to me in making my mind up as to how I want to go ahead with this and I think it was really about to what extent assuming that we keep the buffer zone within the site to what extent will we be able or will planning be able at um at a later date to be able to shape the kind of development that will come forward uh with a view to protecting the the triple sci which is over the other side of the road thank you so through you chair the the wording of the policy as drafted is new homes and other development that would result in unacceptable impacts will not be permitted within 400 meters of the featherbed heaths so in effect that leaves it open through the application process for us to say which development is harmful based on the Habitat Regulations assessment at that time

02:06:54Um so I'm confident that the policy is drafted prevents development coming forward in that area that would be harmful to the Pebblebed Heaths I think it's is whether or not you want to go further than that on other grounds to say we don't want built developments within that that 400 meter area and I don't think that necessarily necessitates a change in terms of the allocation boundary or the settlement boundary because as I said I think that we run into issues over the road and the access at that point if members wanted to make a change though you could amend that wording that I've just read out to say something like new homes and other developments will not be permitted within 400 meters of the pervert heaths um and that would have the same effect my concern though is is that trying to justify that because we've already said development that would have an unacceptable impact on the pervert heaths wouldn't be allowed with that area anyway if you open that up to no built development then where's our justification for that um I don't

02:08:08Think it would be in terms of impacts on the public heaps because we've already precluded that from the wording we've got so is there concern about wider landscape impacts of other issues that would justify that I think is is a question perhaps the committee needs to consider so that's that's the that's the position from mr Freeman um I I appreciate there are hands on this issue I don't want to go down this rabbit hole if um there isn't broad consensus within committee that we need to be seriously looking at making an amendment here um because if that is the case then we need to come to mr hunter on a legal point um can I just circle back and say on on the basis on the basis of what um [member of the public] just said um and that the the details of any kind of development in that buffer would be subject to a consideration anyway based on habitats assessment.

02:09:11I am, I don't, given what could happen with the access road, I am not convinced that bringing it out, bringing the buffer zone out of the site plan is the way forward, just to be clear.

02:09:24Thanks. Okay. So I'm guessing, Councillor Bailey, you're still of the same view? Most definitely. Okay. Councillor Davey. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'm kind of with Councillor Fitzgerald on this one, and I take Ed's point. We should be able to restrict any development that comes forward on the grounds that it would pose an unacceptable impact on the Pebblebed Heaths.

02:10:00And therefore, my concerns were, as I stated, about community use, but if it could be shown that, for instance, floodlights or sighting of a community hall or anything like that would cause those unacceptable impacts, everything's in the name, isn't it?

02:10:24But I think I'm happy with the wording as proposed. I certainly don't want to see the site reduced because that's a nonsense in terms of the access road. So long as we have the powers to restrict development in that area, then I think I'm happy with the wording as it stands. Councillor Jung, briefly, please. I just want some clarity. Are we talking about the whole area around the Pebblebed Heath that is affected by this 400, or just this section?

02:11:08Because that is very important because at the moment Natural England support us on this policy and if we change the wording to no development at all that's going to put a lot of pressure on our planning department and on Natural England because that was their suggestion to put that in on the last Local Plan, and if it becomes more no development at all, then we won't be able to have cycle paths, we won't be able to have SANGs, we won't be able to have foot paths, all sorts of things that we would expect to see in that sort of area.

02:12:04So I see the reason why we would like to do it but it brings up a whole load of other problems if we then change that policy for 400 meter all the way around the Pebblebed Heaths so I think and members can correct me if I'm wrong here but that there are there are two sort of suggestions that have been made one from members of the public that the site boundaries amended to exclude the 400 meter buffer zone and mr. Freeman has then suggested that perhaps instead of that we could amend some of the wording in policy SD01 that refers to EXMO20 to make the requirements around that area more robust so those are the two things that have been suggested not amending the wholesale 400 meter boundary buffer policy so those are the two options on the table I'm going to call now for an indicative vote from members who would be minded to seriously consider one or both of those options to stick the hand in the air please if you think based on what you've heard so

02:13:22Far we either need to be amending the boundary of the site or the wording in policy can we just look at the wording in the policy as in I don't know what it is right now so uh mr Freeman read it out a minute ago can you read it again please mr Freeman so it's on uh page 88 in the track changes version of the pan um bottom of the page I think the relevant sentence is uh new homes and other development that would result in unacceptable impacts will not be permitted within 400 meters of the Pebblebed Heaths there's a lot more words to the policy but I think that's the key bit so if you are minded that that is insufficient and we either need to amend the boundary of the site to exclude the buffer zone or amend that wording can you raise your hand now please okay so on on that basis then there isn't in support there isn't support in committee for pursuing that in which case we don't need to come to Mr. Hunter

02:14:30For legal advice on that issue I'm sure he would very briefly Brian because I want to the vote's gone I bow to my colleagues you've got to go with the flow but at least we gave it a shot however in the future these decisions won't be made by this authority this authority and the members have local knowledge which theoretically these decisions could be made from central Devon north Devon whatever so that to me makes the policy weaker going forward in five or ten years time and strategic we are going forward we are supposed to plan for the future and this is why I think the residents myself and a few others not enough obviously we're thinking about changing the wording and thanks for going through the process chairman I think by way of comfort there brian um and that three letter acronym that you're referring to without mentioning it is banned in any meeting that I chair um but I think all of the models that are on the table for um the future of local government in Devon include a provision

02:15:40That planning committees will be local not council-wide and will have local members making decisions on local planning matters so I hopefully that's some some comfort there okay so having resolved that issue on EXMO20 then or at least for today are there any other comments that members wish to make on the papers that are in front of us on this item please I've had hands from two people who already spoken does anybody who's not already spoken wish to speak on this item please okay in which case um I'm going to propose all six recommendations from the chair as written in your report uh for good order um I will then come to councillors fitzgerald and davie and if anybody else wishes to speak um please raise your hand thereafter thank you um I would just like to go back to the point that I made earlier about the access to the liverton site um it there's there's just a what there's basically one sentence saying that access will be will not be from Salterton road it'll be going through

02:17:02The development and um well we haven't discussed it and I would like to understand the rationale for including it um with in mind that I might propose that we remove that because as I said earlier I'm not sure that it's something that we necessarily need I I it's quite possible that that there has been documentation but I haven't but I haven't you know I haven't read about this but I I'm not I'm not I don't understand why we need to uh specify this at this point thank you so um so the wording of the existing policy on that point is to avoid landscape to avoid

02:18:00Adverse landscape and visual impacts on the national landscape and its setting vehicular access should be taken from liverton business park brackets not salters and road now I think this came about through um our view all along as offices had been when it came forward for allocation and it was an expansion of the existing business park and hence access would come in at the bottom and that the built form would be kept away from the salters and road and that area would alongside the Sorterton Road would be used for biodiversity net gain which they'll have to deliver as part of the development or perhaps some car parking or storage area to keep that relatively open and that's partly in terms of that entrance into the town and keeping that openness because I think as you come in the town from that direction currently all you really see um at that point is I think there's a cottage on the right hand side um next to where this frontage would would be and it kind of stands in isolation and there's another field open this again before

02:19:02You get to liverton business park um and it was sort of respecting that sort of character uh of of the entrance into the town um but also the setting of the national landscape which is obviously opposite side of the Sorterton Road and concerns that the levels within Exmo_18 as I understand it you've got a level up at Sorterton Road and it drops quite steeply to the north away from that as as you'll see if you go into the existing Everton Business Park Liverton 2 is substantially lower than Liverton 1 and so there's a lot of engineering works that were involved in creating access from Liverton 1 down into Liverton 2 retaining walls a road that sort of winds down cut into the slope and the concern I think with this is that with Liverton 3 you would end up with a similar arrangement of having this road if it came in from the Saundersham Road having to cut into the slope and down retaining structures and things all of which would be quite prominent in the wider landscape and views interact with views across towards the national

02:20:03Landscape so we were trying to minimise those impacts by requiring the road to come in from the bottom you would basically focus the built form of development down on the levels down in the bottom of the site and if you needed to deliver biodiversity net gain or perhaps some parking or anything you would come up the slope and into the higher parts of the site for those more open aspects of of the use so that was the thinking and the logic behind that um I hear what um yes and john was saying in terms of the presentation I think his concern is about sort of ruling that out at this stage and um I mean you could amend the wording to make that more open um but I think it still raises the question of do we even want commercial scale buildings on that frontage um because I think that's what would would partly result from that what what you could do I suppose just thinking through potential options here is um you could amend the wording to say that the primary vehicle access will be from liverton business park um

02:21:21Which could then potentially leave it open for smaller secondary access to just that unit on that frontage if you were happy with a frontage unit there um and then we could perhaps add in some additional wording about that being sensitively designed in terms of the wider landscape and and the entrance to the town I think it comes down to though um how concerned are you about that that frontage and the visual impact of that at the entrance to the town and its potential impact in terms of the wider landscape on the national landscape opposite.

02:22:00But we also have to appreciate we've got Expo 17, the other side of the road, albeit further in towards the town, but that would also alter the view at that point because you'll have distant views of Expo 17 across to the left-hand side coming in as well. So I think those are the options. I think it depends how comfortable you are with an access at that point and whether or not you think it should just be a secondary access if there is one, at which point if you're comfortable with a secondary access we could potentially amend the wording and tweak that in some way to accommodate that or leave it open for that.

02:22:37Thank you. So my instinctive feeling about this is that it's not an unsolvable problem in that if it were a secondary access, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to my mind that you couldn't have an area provided for the biodiversity net gain of the site,

02:23:11Or SANGs um or some kind of um woodland for example as you come into that area as long as there's a sign there that says you know the businesses that can be accessed most easily from this side I think the thing that concerned me was hearing just how far um people the traffic is going to have to go to get to that end of the site um and if you were one a lot of the businesses that currently to closest to the road in that site are the more kind of um what's the word consumer businesses if you like and then as you get further back you get some really big places for joinery and building firms and so on um which are down in the valley and therefore more hidden um it doesn't seem to me that it's it's a necessary exclusive thing just because you have access doesn't necessarily mean that you then need to build really a protrusive kind of buildings at that point. It just seems to me that it doesn't seem commercially viable to expect people to

02:24:19Go through that already very, you know, quite congested main entrance into it. It can get quite congested and then travel whatever it is, more than a mile to get to a business. That doesn't seem viable for consumer businesses, retail businesses to me, and therefore you're really kind of narrowing the potential for that part of the site. And I don't see why we would do that unless we absolutely needed to do it. Thank you.

02:24:53I was going to come in on exactly the same point, actually. And much as I want to protect protect the national landscape. Mr. Freeman mentioned coming in to Exmouth and what you're going to see. At the moment, as you come into Exmouth, pretty much the first thing you see on your right is a McDonald's. So, you know, let's not get too concerned if 100 yards further down the road there's a vehicle entrance.

02:25:26And I understand, but I think we could alter So the wording to, say, any vehicular access from – or additional vehicular access taken from the Salterton Road should be sensitively designed and appropriately screened, perhaps. Because, yeah, if you look at this on Google Maps, traffic comes in off the Salterton Road, then loops round in quite a large loop. and I'm assuming we're talking about coming all the way down there through a roundabout opposite screw fix more or less then doing a right where I think there's already a bit of road and that would then lead in but that is really quite a big detour and there's almost an opportunity here to design a one-way system actually that could manage some of the traffic flow there anyway.

02:26:32Thank you, Ollie. Ed has just made the point that McDonald's would be a lot less prominent if the Town Council hadn't approved so much signage with its delegated advertising consent powers. But there we go. Okay, okay.

02:26:56Thank you. Thank you, members. So I'm hearing from the members what live down that bit, that they're minded to take some kind of access off the B3178. Councillor Bailey.

02:27:13Thank you very much. I understand what Charlotte and Ollie are saying, but having been a professional driver for a very, very long time, from cars to vehicles, 80 tonnes plus. I know my way around, and looking at that junction, coming out of the industrial estate, you turn left the body, all well and good, but you haven't got anywhere that you could put another entrance in there, and you're bearing in mind you're coming up the dip, Liverpool dip, up to a dip, which is supposed to be a 40 mile speed limit, but most people are doing 50 or 60 in the real world. So I would be in favour of extending what's already there, go to the bottom and come in, as Ollie said, you'd come in from the bottom end.

02:28:00And whoever's going to go up there, they're not going to go up on a bicycle and buy a box of nails or three or four boxes of tiles. Well, you must be a very thick chap, Molly. You must be the only one. The majority of people aren't. So it's vehicle access for vehicle collections. And I think the determination would be from Devon Highways have already stated in previous negotiations to get extensions for the building site down there that they would prefer traffic lights and they are I mean we have to take advice from them but they are the ultimate authority on that so rest my case chair thank you very much Thank you Councillor Bailey I must say I'm sympathetic to the view that actually a slightly longer way in isn't going to make that much difference given that everybody visits this site is going to be in a car and driving a mile extra in a car as opposed to a mile less isn't that it tells me it's about two-thirds of a mile but um I think my point stands nevertheless

02:29:03Um are members minded to make a proposal on this I suppose is the crux of it because we could go around in circles for quite a while Councillor Fitzgerald I'm happy to make a proposal but I haven't got any wording. Ed, do you have any suggestions for what might be acceptable in planning terms if Councillor Fitzgerald is minded to accept a primary access or a secondary access just to the frontage?

02:29:30A secondary access just to the frontage. Do you have any suggestions, Mr Freeman? Well, funnily enough, Chair, I was making some notes. So while my recommendation to the committee would be to leave things as they are, from what I've understood from the discussion, I think this wording might suit to what Councillor Fitzgerald is trying to achieve here. So my suggestion would be to avoid adverse landscape and visual impacts in the national landscape and its setting.

02:29:56Primary vehicle access should be taken from the Liverton Business Park. Any secondary access from Sorterton Road should be carefully designed and screened to minimise any impacts on the setting of the national landscape. Does that satisfy you, Councillor Fitzgerald? Yes, thank you. So, in which case then, we are adding a seventh proposal to amend the wording under Exmo_18 along the lines of the wording that Mr. Freeman has just read out there.

02:30:31So, that is added to the proposals which I proposed earlier from the Chair, added to those that are set out in the report in front of you, which we'll come back to when we come to voting. Are there any other issues that members want to bring up this afternoon, please? Okay, well, let it not be said that you did not have the opportunity to speak, in which case then we're going to come to a vote on the proposals that are in front of us, which, to remind members, are the proposals, recommendations 1 to 6 that are set out in the covering report for Agenda Item 7 in front of us,

02:31:13With the additional recommendation that we alter the wording on the allocation at Exmo_18 to include the phrasing that Ed has just read out regarding a secondary access for the sites fronting the B3178. Are there any questions on those proposals before we go to a vote, please? Councillor Howe. Just for clarity, I'd like the added proposal to be dealt with separately. Okay. We can do that. Councillor Bailey.

02:31:43Where is it proposed that this second entrance will actually physically be, please? That would be a matter for a planning application. No, we don't. This is strategic planning. We make policy allocations here. We don't need to know exactly where along there. Are there any further questions on this, please? No? Okay. In which case then, we've had a request to take 1 to 6 and 7 separately. so this first vote please members is for recommendations one to six as set out in agenda item seven are we all clear on that okay in which case then all those in favor of recommendations one to six that's 10 in favor those against please that's two against and those abstaining please that's one abstention okay thank you members so recommendations one to six are carried. We then come to recommendation 7 regarding the amendment to Exmo_18 to permit in policy terms a secondary access to the frontage of the B3178. All those members in favour of that amendment please. That's 6 in favour those against please. I count 1

02:33:17And those abstaining please. I count 5 so that amendment is carried and somebody didn't vote yes did somebody not vote in that one sorry did I [member of the public] hand voted for okay so seven just to miscount that okay in which case then all seven recommendations are carried thank you members we are going to break for lunch now before we consider agenda items 8 and 9 shall we take 40 minutes, is that enough for members? Yep, okay so we will reconvene at half past one please, thank you

00:00:01Members. And Ed. Welcome back, everyone. Are we back on stream? We are. Thank you very much, Debbie. Okay. Brilliant. In which case, then, we will carry on with Agenda Item 8, the Heritage Strategy, please. Mr. Freeman.

00:00:23Thank you chair so alongside the Local Plan consultation it's proposed to consult on a draft heritage strategy which would replace the existing heritage strategy which runs with the existing Local Plan from 2018 to 2031 so there's a need to update the heritage strategy alongside the new Local Plan and this partly responds to issues raised by historic England in terms of the detail that goes with the Local Plan on heritage matters.

00:00:53So obviously East Devon is rich in heritage assets and so ensuring we have a positive strategy for conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment is a key part of plan making and it's also a clear requirement of the MPPF and as I say something that's been highlighted by Historic England in their comments on the plan to date so hopefully having this alongside this last round of Reg 19 consultation will help to address their concerns. The strategy is based on three themes namely understanding and appreciating our historic environment, positively managing our historic environment and enhancing and benefiting from our heritage. It's the last of these that is the most challenging. Obviously we have a huge amount of information about our historic environment and a good understanding and appreciation of it and positively managing it. Obviously we deal with the applications that we receive, inquiries receive about listed buildings and conservation areas and ensure through the consents that we grant that those issues are given due consideration and the special character of those areas is respected it's the proactive enhancing and benefiting from our heritage that we've always struggled with in

00:02:01Terms of resourcing fundamentally so you'll see that that section of the document has a number of actions identified which seek to build on the achievements of the previous strategy and look to engage further with community groups such as neighbourhood planning groups to develop local policies and guidance and identify heritage assets such as those for the local list. The intention is that our officers would help to facilitate and enable this work and help to identify sources of funding such as through the National Heritage Memorial Fund and support a wide range of heritage themed projects working in partnership with our community groups and heritage societies um accepting that we simply don't have the resources to be as proactive as we would like um but if we can work with those groups that are keen to engage in this work um and help to facilitate that we can hopefully work uh for common gold through the strategy to achieve the best outcomes for heritage in East Devon um so really that's the the crux of of the strategy that's before you um at this stage just asking members to agree uh to consult

00:03:07On the draft heritage strategy um the intention is that it would go out to consultation alongside the Local Plan at the end of this week run through to uh I think it's the 26th of january um I said earlier uh so the document would be available on our website with a comments form for any comments to be received um and then we can um review those comments and make any any tweaks the heritage strategy is a bit different to the Local Plan that it doesn't have to be examined in the same way so there will be an opportunity for us to make any changes uh and amendments following the consultation um prior to adopting it um so yes make that recommendation to the committee thank you chair okay thank you mr Freeman members any questions okay any comments members oh sorry Councillor Faithfull just say so this does include all the things that just the local community you think are a heritage asset rather than national yeah so it's not just um those that are nationally designated like conservation areas a list of buildings there's also the local list

00:04:18Uh involved in this so it's an opportunity for us to have to engage with our communities as we're trying to do through our neighbourhood plans in terms of what should go on a local list are there buildings and views that are particularly important to communities that should be recognised through NAPA plans and things like that as well we can work with them to review conservation area appraisal documents where there is an existing designation but it perhaps needs looking at because some of the appraisals are quite old so there's lots of things like that around local assets and I realise I've focused almost entirely on the built environment but Obviously, Heritage also incorporates the landscape, the Jurassic Coast, national landscapes, et cetera, as well.

00:05:04And obviously, there's some local designations in there as well. So, yes, very much local designations as well as national.

00:05:13Thank you. Any further questions? No. OK. Any comments, please, members? No. In which case, I will move this one from the chair then. All those in favour, please. that is unanimous okay thank you very much members uh which brings us then to agenda item nine uh the housing monitoring update to year ending 31st march 25 mr Freeman uh thank you chair so uh members will be familiar with the format and content of this report as it follows the same approach as previous annual monitoring reports on our housing supply position members will recall that the last monitoring report we identified a 2.97 year housing and supply I'm pleased to report that this has improved to 3.5 years but it's still some way short of the five-year supply position that government says we should have this is despite the number I mean the improvement is despite the number of homes built during the year remaining low and we're down at 696 homes compared to government requirement now with the new standard method of 1156 homes per year so quite a long way

00:06:29Short and that's the second year in succession we've been down around the 600 odd mark but I think it represents a bit of a slowdown in the in the construction industry more generally partly as a result of increasing costs There are also issues around supply in terms of expertise with new building control regime taking effect, shortage of surveyors, all sorts of issues going on in the construction industry, which is unfortunately slowing things down.

00:07:00So this we're not alone in terms of this slowdown in in supply and build out of homes uh and I think we're far from alone in in not having a five-year housing and supply the majority of authorities don't um partly because of the introduction of the new standard method which obviously increased the numbers um the improvement therefore in terms of our position is mainly derived from um consents that have been granted and are now within our five-year supply position so obviously with the application of the tilted balance from not having five-year housing and supply we've had various applications coming forward particularly for sites that are allocated in the Local Plan that have the new Local Plan that have not reached formal allocation because the plan hasn't progressed that far but applications have come in ahead of that and through applications the tilted balance a number have been approved mainly around sort of Exmouth and Woodbury and Limston areas in particular as well as progression with the Cranbrook expansion area consents which obviously is a significant part

00:08:07Of the supply position as well so so those have bolstered what's in our projected supply for the next five years which is is helping to improve the position the supply position however remains significantly below the five-year requirements and so the tilted balance must continue to be applied with substantial weight to be given to bolstering housing supply. I think this is likely to remain the case until adoption of Local Plan when obviously we move from a position at the moment where we have to calculate our supply position against the standard method.

00:08:41Once the Local Plan is adopted we can measure it against the requirement figure within the plan which is the 80% of the current standard method because we're going through the transitional arrangements under the NPPF so that will immediately improve the position alongside the fact we'll obviously have the supplier set out in the plan until then we need to continue to apply the tilted balance and continue to bolster our supply position because the plan alone isn't sufficient we will need to build up a supply through consents as well in the intervening time until the plan is adopted but based on current work we think this is achievable um but only through continuing to bolster supply and through what we've discussed previously the step trajectory arrangement which takes account of the fact that mile coon will come on stream during the planned period and significantly boost supply uh in in from sort of 2030 onwards um so members are asked to note the housing completions data and future projections are set out in the report note the five-year housing and supply position and note

00:09:48The housing monitoring updates appended to the report will be published on the council's website thank you thank you mr. Freeman questions please Councillor Jung then Levine first of all just for clarity it's all full planning applications that are considered and not now line can you explain housing delivery test because I didn't understand that points five point one five point yeah from five point one down to five point five because I wasn't clear on that piece okay Councillor The bean what about that you mentioned about the seventh figure is going to be come out soon or has it come out on in 5.6 you say the result of the seventh house determination test is anticipated at the time of writing yeah it is still being anticipated Councillor How mine's a bit more of a practical question it's actually going back to our water cycle report that we had earlier this morning and that's with regard to planning applications that now in the system that we all know about outside of our emerging Local Plan so they will boost our housing land supply

00:11:24But are now in areas where doubts are cast shall we say about the efficiency of the ability of the water system particularly the waste system to accommodate them because if we grumpy in them will they ever actually achieve the housing numbers and in fall over shall we say I'm just trying to get to understand where we are and how we get through that and Councillor Faithfull yeah this is where we are at the moment so we've got when our this present Local Plan goes in place that will cover us for a five year will it or where are we at with our six years which is what we're going to need eventually as the report says that covers us for five years so the six-year thing falls away once we get to the Local Plan Councillor Ledger question and do we know how many planning applications have had a technical start but have not actually commenced with development and how many dwellings that may be No, I've got plenty of pages left.

00:12:53Don't you dare film them. So, yes, coming back to Councillor Jung's point, yes, so to include a site within our five-year housing and supply position, we need to have sufficient certainty that it will come forward within the five-year period. So outlying consent is not normally included within that because you have no certainty unless it's got full consent and can actually be implemented. um the housing delivery test yes so um aside from having a five-year housing and supply we're also supposed to satisfy this housing delivery test um so I tend to think of it as the five-year housing and supply is forward looking the housing delivery test is backwards looking in terms of what we've actually delivered um so what I'm flagging up in section five of the port really is there's a danger that we're going to fail the housing delivery test fundamentally because, as you'll see from the delivery rates over the last three years, it's not sufficient fundamentally based on what the government is saying we should be providing.

00:14:03While we still keenly anticipate the outcome of the housing delivery test, which we have met every year up until now, there is a good chance that we won't satisfy it and we will have to take action accordingly so there are different measures depending on where we sit in relation to that I think in all likelihood we'll probably have to produce some kind of plan to demonstrate how we're addressing the housing and supply position some might say that's the Local Plan but you know we'll need to explain what we're doing about that issue um the worst case scenario is this 20 20 buffer scenario but as the chair said that would if that applied that would drop away a point of adoption of the new plan um so I don't think we need to worry overly about that there might be some interim measures we need to take between now and adoption of the plan to satisfy the government but I think we're doing all we can fundamentally in terms of that um in terms of

00:15:13Council house point uh applications in the system whether that's about water infrastructure um I mean I think the water uh the water cycle study provides additional evidence to inform our understanding of capacity um we still need to be consulting with southwest water and understanding what their view of the situation is and also what they are doing in terms of delivering infrastructure where there are shortfalls identified in the water cycle study and I think we then need to take a view as to whether or not in those locations that where there are issues whether or not we have sufficient comfort that capacity will be provided within the term of that planning permission to grant commission permission but with a gramping condition or whether or not if the infrastructure is not going to come forward in a suitable time scale for that permission to be implemented whether or not we need to then refuse permission on the basis of the impact of that development on the water environment which will also need to be informed by consultation responses from the Environment Agency which I think is another key aspect of

00:16:21That excuse me because I think it's one thing to show that there's not capacity in terms of wastewater treatment works we would also need to demonstrate the harm that arises from that in terms of pollution and impacts on the water environment so having comments from the environment agency could be critical to that in terms of joining that up and having a robust case if it were to go to appeal so I'm hoping we'll get comments on the water cycle study from the environment agency through the consultation on that and then we can go from from there but hopefully if they endorse the report they will then follow through with comments using that as an evidence base to say well you know if you grant this consent unless you've got assurance from southwest water that the infrastructure is going to be provided during the term of that planning permission you should be refusing it because it will have this impact on the water environment so hopefully those things will all come together through the consultation and we'll reach a clear position with both southwest water and environment agency

00:17:20Through that additional work um and I think that's where we need to try and get to for this additional report next year on the water cycle study in that discussion is having had those that feedback from southwest water and environment agency and have that position hopefully agreed by then um and then turning to council ledger's point about uh permissions where um sort of a material start has been made but no more work's taken place we don't record that I don't have any specific data on that my understanding is though that it would be a small proportion of the consents that we've granted generally you know there's quite a lot of cost in just going in and making a material start you've got to discharge all of your planning conditions which can be a costly process in itself you'd have to get building regulations involved and consent for that and you have to go in and do something material like form an access or dig and backfill of a foundation or something like that to make a material start to protect your planning permission in perpetuity

00:18:29And that in itself is quite a costly exercise so generally we see that happen on some small scale projects individual self-builds conversions and things like that the larger scale housing developments that have a real material impact on our housing delivery you know once they get on site and they start they follow through and and and proceed to build out some quicker than others really I mean I think it's fair to say build-out rates in the western part of the district to quite significantly higher than in the eastern part of the district where we've seen sites are particularly thinking you know sites around seats in the Pebble Beach developments been very slow token lawns Axminster has been incredibly slow so but they've never actually just stopped as far as I'm aware it's just that it's been slow build out over a number of years with the numbers delivered in no more than sort of 10 or 12 a year in some cases hopefully that helps thank you thank you mr.

00:19:36Freeman I have seen hands from counselors Fitzgerald and Blakey and then young please I'm alright thank you my questions already been answered for mr. Freeman of course you mentioned that there is a possibility of failing the HDD HDT at which point we need to take some other action but bearing in mind we're looking at a housing market which is slow and appears to be getting slower we have a budget coming tomorrow we don't know obviously what that contains but I I don't think there's been really any mention of of trying to stimulate the housing market in any notable way and obviously we rely on very largely as you say for large-scale development on national developers who will be unwilling as we already know to build houses for which there is not a an immediate market How would we actually, what action could we take to stimulate housing construction and sales in the absence of there being any such thing as council houses that we're able to build currently?

00:21:00How could we actually do something to stimulate the construction and then presumably, in most cases, the purchase, either by private individuals or by rental providers? How do we go about it? Sorry, that's a bit of a nasty question. There you go. An important one. Councillor Jung, the second. Yeah, I presume we can't do cumulative additions because we seem to, on the HDTs, because 123%, 126%, 118%. If we go to 95, it would be disappointing if they're not, they look at we've overperformed previously.

00:21:58The other thing with Southwest Water, it was interesting to note that Honiton is over capacity at the moment. At that section of the Otter, there's no planned investment for Southwest Water for the next four years. They work in five-year cycles, and their cycle started last year. so there's no investment planned for Honiton although it's um did I hear it was 50 over capacity which is a bit scary thank you I'm not sure I detected a question there are we are we chasing um southwest water on Honiton yes [member of the public] uh thank you chair um Yes, so coming back to Councillor Bokey's point, a lot of this I think is a national picture, which there's not a great deal we can do about that.

00:23:03But I think what we can do is look at the local picture. So I think we've got a good story to tell in terms of progression of the Local Plan, in terms of sites that are allocated in the Local Plan being readily granted consent in advance of the plan coming forward to bolster our housing and supply position. we've got a good story to tell about um plans at malcom and obviously the expansion areas at Cranbrook uh in terms of direct things we could do I think if they're if we were identifying sites that have got consent that have not come forward or sites that are delivering particularly slowly there may be some benefit in sitting down with the developers and having a conversation to understand the issues why have they not brought that site forward or why are they building out so slowly to help to inform that work just in case there are local issues that we're not particularly aware of are there issues around um you know supply of materials supply of skilled

00:23:58Labor things like that that we might be able to um through working with other stakeholders and partners seek to address um so I think there's some work we could do there if we needed to um my perception is that it's largely the national picture that's impacting on us um and that's where I think the results of the housing delivery test issue will be particularly interesting because are they going to send the majority of local authorities through the housing delivery test um as a consequence of them putting all the housing numbers up which is skewed the test over the last year which means lots more people will fail it or are they gonna just say well that's that's the position don't worry I I don't know um it's going to be interesting to see what happens because my perception is that there's a lot of local authorities that don't have a five-year housing land supply and unless they've done better over the last couple of years uh they may well fail the housing delivery test as well um so whether or not the usual um measures that result from that

00:25:03Are applied I I don't know we'll have to see what happens um but I think there's a few things that we could do in terms of the council young's point I don't think I say I think over performed in previous years will be taken account of at all if I'm honest it certainly doesn't come up in terms of you know effect sort of five year housing and supply position or anything so no I don't think that will help I mean I think it would be part of the story and the narrative we could tell government if we were required to produce a plan or something to explain why this is a blip rather than a a major trend um but I don't think it will be given a huge amount of weight if I'm honest um Honiton being over capacity yes as jess says um we are working with south west water we need to to work with them I would say yes they've got their five-year plans but I don't think they're necessarily set in stone I think we there are conversations we can have with them

00:26:05Um to to vary that um and work within that framework so again those are the conversations we need to have prior to bringing a further report back about the water cycle study next year thank you [member of the public] Davey thank you well ed's touched on this already but it seems to me that the government has set not just ambitious targets but in fact unrealistic targets that nobody can achieve. It's been widely suggested that the building industry simply doesn't have the capacity to even deliver on the number of houses the government wants to see built. And so they're going to find more and more councils in this position where we just cannot deliver the numbers. And I wonder if it's worth pointing out to the government probably isn't that they're setting themselves up to fail they're setting everybody up to fail and and we just cannot physically produce the numbers so we'll be constantly failing their tests and constantly short of a five-year housing land supply indeed any further questions Councillor Faithfull you don't seem convinced whether you have one or not

00:27:30Well, I'm not sure if it's been already answered by Councillor Davey and respond to Councillor Kevin over there. It's looking at this graph, whatever graph is, the blue and yellow one, table 14. And I mean, that is suggesting that we're not going to be well below what we should be doing anyway, isn't it? This is not allowing for the Local Plan. This is where we are at the moment, isn't it?

00:28:14Table 14, page, I don't know what page we're on. I only count four tables. Page 18 of 32 in the report, blue and yellow. Oh, the appendix, right. So it's saying 11.57 for 25.26, then going down to 800, 6.92, 6.89, 7.51, and 30.31 is 8.83 totals.

00:28:53Yeah, so I think as things stand, that's just things that are consented and then known about at the moment. So that comes back to bolstering that through consents in the meantime. it also comes back to the step trajectory so um while the requirement is what are we aiming for 954 a year across the plan period um but the step trajectory means it's lower than that in those early years of the plan excepting that it would step up when Marlcombe comes on stream um so that's not as disastrous as that looks when you're looking at figures of six seven hundred because is going to be lower than 954 in those early years of the plan anyway and then stepping up to sort of 11 1200 a year in the latter years once Marlcombe comes on stream um so it comes back to those two key things really um continuing to bolster supply through consents uh through application of the tilted balance and um reliance on this tilted balance this step trajectory argument when it comes to the Local Plan

00:29:55Examination and acceptance of that by the examiner, that we can adopt that approach on the basis of supply stepping up substantially when Marlcombe comes on stream. Okay, thank you Mr Freeman. I'm going to move Councillor Bailey, I'm not going to move us to debate. Your question. A quick one if I may. I'm saying devil's advocate here. It appears that looking at this we're in a position as Ollie said, we're never going to catch up the way it's going the housing market's dropping like a stone developers aren't building the speculative houses now because they know if they build them they can't sell them, so the whole thing's grinding to a halt, and my question is is there any way that Mr Freeman could see that we could avoid the alleged penalties that are attached to this if we don't comply with the regulations i.e. extra houses thrust upon us when we can't deliver all we've got thank you well I mean I think in terms of the housing delivery test we are in in the controls of

00:31:14Of you know national things that we don't have control over fundamentally um but the measures aren't um necessarily additional houses thrust on us it's about um having an action plan or this 20% buffer so I think the answer remains progressing the Local Plan and getting that through to adoption fundamentally in terms of things we can do and ensuring that that gives us a five year housing and supply at the point of adoption which it has to in in terms of what's actually built out as I've said there's not a huge amount more we can be doing say I think if we had to have an action plan I'd be thinking about things like sitting down with some developers and understanding things from their perspective.

00:32:00But my understanding would be there would be these wider issues about market conditions, costs of materials, cost of labour, access to skilled labour, much of which are things we don't have much control over. So it's a national issue that needs to be dealt with on a national scale. I mean, I always remember being shown a slide that showed housing delivery on a national scale year by year since the war, basically.

00:32:29And the only time at which this country has delivered the scale of house building that the government is talking about is in the post-war era in the 1950s and 60s when there was massive amounts of public sector housing being built through council housing. And that's the only way we've ever achieved it as a country. The private sector just won't. it's not in their interest to to build to that level so you know it's quite clear that some different action is needed to to address that I would have thought but that's not within our control or within planning policies control we can only do what we can you mentioned building council houses would that be a way of alleviating the problem with our housing supply that if we as an authority or start building houses and then that would alleviate the problem We'd be up to our numbers, and then two degrees, have a five-year land supply, and settle things down a little bit, or not.

00:33:32Thank you. So I'm going to answer that one, rather than leading Ed to it, as it is a bit more political. And Ed has already made some of the points that I was going to make in following up, that the planning system as it is doesn't recognize that ultimately it's in private sector developers' best interests if the market is sagging to just not build because that will keep prices stable for them and they won't suffer on their margins.

00:33:59Public sector house building as it is and the initiative that Dan and his team have done with the £100 million investment over the next, what is it, five years off the top of my head, something like that, is exactly the sort of solution we need to be looking to. The issue is we don't, as an authority and across many other authorities, the picture will be the same we don't have the capacity to be doing it at a scale significantly beyond that which it would take to make up that gap you know in in years like and so last year we were looking at what slightly below 700 delivered if I'm remembering yes like slightly below 696 delivered last year to make that up to the what to the 11 1156 is it that's 456 houses which is the entire five-year program delivered in a year as an authority without a step change in our revenue funding position. We don't have the capacity to be doing things like that every single year. And frankly, the private sector controls the land that we would need to do it.

00:35:07So to some extent or other, you're still beholden to those private developer interests. The entire system basically sets us up to fail and is horrendous and needs tearing down and rebuilding from the ground up but there we go um that's my view anyway councillors uh I have ledger and then blakey please really quick one and ed should the track changes be in the appendix and would it be wise to maybe remove them um no they very much shouldn't be there I don't know how that's happened uh we'll make sure the final version obviously doesn't have those uh when it gets put on the website Councillor Blakey just as a follow-up to your comments chair even if we had the money and it suddenly magic magic itself out of somewhere where are you going to find the trades to build the things indeed rock and a hard place comes to mind very good um well other than commiserating about the sorry state of the planning system as it is um does anybody have any further comments to make about this report I wasn't going to make a comment I was going to move the

00:36:20Recommendations oh very good would anybody wish to a council of veins and rocketed up to second those does anybody have any further comments to make them please no in which case we will go to a vote all those in favor of accepting the three recommendations please 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 which stacks up because Councillor Piers left those against one and those abstaining none very good okay that brings us to the end of today's meeting then thank you very much members