Strategic Planning Committee, 22 September 2026

00:17:02Good morning, everyone. We're going to get started, please. First off, the usual health and safety announcement. There's no fire alarm drill anticipated today, so in the event of a fire alarm sounding, please leave the building through the nearest fire exit and by following the green running man signs above the doors and make your way to the rear of the car park. If anybody needs assistance leaving the building in the event of an emergency evacuation, please let us know. The organiser of the meeting will then tell you when it is safe to return.

00:17:31Please could everyone make sure all phones are either muted or switched off. To start the meeting proper then, good morning everybody and welcome to the Strategic Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday, the 22nd of September, 2026. I'm your Chair, Councillor Todd Olive, and to my right is Vice Chair, Councillor Mike Howe. Supporting enforcers present this morning are Ed Freeman, Assistant Director, Planning, Strategy and Development Services, Damian Hunter, Planning Solicitor, and Wendy Harris, Democratic Services Officer.

00:17:59Could I remind everyone present, please, that this meeting is recorded for publication on the Council's websites, so please can members and officers making a contribution to the meeting use a microphone or your comments will not be recorded. We will now start the meeting by doing a roll call of committee members and declarations of interests, before which I believe Damien just has a brief item of advice for members, please.

00:18:23Thank you, Chair. members I was contacted by Councillor Fernley who just asked me a question with regards to declaring an interest and I think it's probably likely to apply to most if not all of you so I thought if I just relay that advice to you now before Wendy takes your declarations and it's just in relation to item 7 and there is part of the minutes where there's a resolution to recommend to Strategic Planning Committee that the next still bidding round be opened on the 1st of november 2026 and close on the 31st of january 2027 for projects identified in the idp list with a minimum project value of 200 000 pounds and uh council firmly just said that her parish council uh like a lot of parish and town councils have uh so funding and monies and she just asked did she need to declare an interest And what my advice has been is that this resolution doesn't refer specifically to just Brokely's Parish Council, so there's no need for her to declare another registrable interest.

00:19:30But what I do think should be declared by anybody who is a town or parish Councillor Who benefits from their sole money is an effects non-registrable interest. That's not a prejudicial interest in any way. It just acknowledges that, as a parish council, you will have some of this money there. You're still entitled to take part in the full discussion and vote on the resolution, but at least it just makes it clear to the members of the public, anybody else, that you are mindful that your parish councils and town councils will benefit from the sole monies.

00:20:06So my advice, again, if you are a parish or town councillor, is to declare an effects non-registrable interest in respect to item 7.

00:20:17Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Damien. Wendy? Thank you, Chair. I'll start with yourself. I am present and pursuance to Damien's advice. I will declare an effects non-registrable interest as a member of Wimple Parish Council in relation to item 7.

00:20:39Thank you. Vice Chair, Councillor Howe? Yes, thank you. I'm here and again effects non-NRI, whatever it is we're calling it, with relation to my membership of Bishops Cliffs Parish Council. Councillor Brian Bailey.

00:20:58Good morning, Wendy. Yes, I'm here, and I would like to declare the same interests as I've read with you, and all things excellent. Thank you. Everybody else wanted us to declare? For the benefit of the record, then, we will note that Councillors Blakey, Brown, and Jess Bailey, you did a hand up, didn't you, Jess, are not going to be declaring an effects NRI in relation to Agenda Item 7, but that everybody else on committee will be doing so okay um jess bailey present um and I would like to declare that I'm a Devon county Councillor I make that declaration every meeting uh is that and I think it's a non-registral interest as a Devon county Councillor Because it for each item thank you Councillor Blakey present and no declarations how easy was that perfect Councillor Colin brown present and nothing to declare thank you Councillor Davey present and I'm an Exmouth town Councillor In respect of item seven so effects nri thank you Councillor Faithfull Present Member of Ottery Samaritan Council Reference No. 7 Thank you

00:22:50Councillor Fernley Yes, present FXNRI Orchard Parish Council Thank you Councillor Ingham Present No declarations Thank you Do we have Councillor Jung? No Councillor Ledger present and uh an effect nri in relation to item seven I am a seat in town Councillor Thank you non-committee members do you have any declarations no thank you back to you chair okay thank you uh moving on to uh the agenda proper then um agenda item one minutes of the previous meeting held on the 14th of July 2026 does anybody have any comments on those minutes please no okay in which case then as chair I now would like to move those minutes as true and accurate records members please raise your hands if you're in favor any can we have hands clearly please six seven those against please and abstentions okay thank you members that's carried Agenda Item 2. Apologies. Wendy?

00:24:24We have three apologies. Councillor Yehudi Levine, Councillor Paul Hayward and Councillor Charlotte Fitzgerald. And I will add Councillor Jung's to that as well, please, which presumably Councillor Fairley was also going to do. Good. Jeff covered his bases. Very good. Thank you very much. Are there any other apologies from the room? no okay uh thank you very much everyone uh agenda item three declarations of interest we have already done thank you members uh which brings us to agenda item four public speaking we have four members of the public registered to speak uh this morning uh followed by uh questions from members of the public which we will do after all of those statements uh and first up please mr nigel humphrey good morning we've been trying for over two years now to get EXMO20 removed from the

00:25:27Draft Local Plan but have also been trying to ensure that the plan is as robust as possible. We have been ignored. The MPPF states that the plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous yet within the policy for EXMO20 for the 400 metre buffer zone it states new homes and other development that would result in unacceptable impacts will not be permitted within 400 metres of the Pebblebed Heaths. The term unacceptable is ambiguous. No definition of what is or is not unacceptable in the plan at all. Why? For St John in the Wilderness Church, it states an extensive area must be established around the church and subject to not having adverse heritage impacts. Again, ambiguous. EDDC assessed the church back in August 2025, and identified areas where development shouldn't be included.

00:26:30You refuse to apply the findings of that assessment. No definition of what is and is not extensive, and what our adverse heritage impacts in any way. This should be clearly defined within the plan. For site access, it uses the terms modest, large majority, large bulk, Again, ambiguous. I have raised this at SPC and via my Reg 19 comments, all of which have been ignored. I can already hear you saying this will be picked up in the planning stage.

00:27:06However, the planning stage for EXMO20 has already started. The developers are putting together their master plan and using the plan's ambiguity to propose For the 400m buffer zone, there's going to be two sports pitches, changing rooms, car park, a 1,000m square play area, a care home, a cafe, a farm shop, business units, etc. All within the 400m buffer zone, with the intention that all employment units for this site will be based in the 400m buffer zone.

00:27:44It's ridiculous. The buffer zone around the church they're saying 100 metres is fine. Is this what your class is extensive? If the plan was not ambiguous then we wouldn't even have to have these sort of debates. Look at what the NPPF says. At the last SPC meeting I asked a question about the 400 metre buffer zone wording and the response was the council's position is that the existing policy wording provides a sufficient basis for determining planning applications and that no further detail or clarification is considered necessary at this stage so you're not even you're not even ignoring us but you're also doing the NPPF you still got time remove the ambiguity from this plan and even better do the right thing and remove EXMO20 from the plan itself thank you for your Thank you, [member of the public]. [member of the public].

00:29:07Councillors, you will notice that each of the five speakers today from the Stop EXMO20 Action Group speaks to a different point. Over two years, 754 days since you wrongly decided against professional advice to allocate EXMO20 in the draft Local Plan there are still clear areas where your officials cannot find a lawful way through the evident failings of the site. This morning I am addressing their inability to provide a credible air quality mitigation document. There is no doubt it is extremely difficult to scientifically calculate, not guess, the number of non-polluting vehicles on the road in 16 years' time. We know from the figures provided by the trade body of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that the number of EV and hybrid vehicles on the road today is 4.54% of the total fleet, which means one vehicle in 22 being driven across the pebble beds today is not adding to the pollution. We also know from paragraph 3.13 of the update that your consultants Ricardo want to use the figure of 74% of all distances travelled will

00:30:21Be by EV in the year 2042. However, Ricardo are not up to speed. Due to the government's decision in the summer to review the ZEV mandate. This is a system of compelling vehicle manufacturers to produce a quota of EVs. The review started on the 14th of August and continues until the 23rd of October. The outcome is not scheduled until quarter 1.27 after the deadline for the submission of this plan. The reason given by the government for undertaking the review, and I quote, is to evaluate sales targets for cars and light goods to make sure they are practical under the current global and supply chain pressures. In other words, to water down the targets for EV and probably to delay those targets, exactly what has happened in the EU. There therefore cannot be any scientific certainty about the work currently being undertaken by Ricardo. There can only be certainty in the forecast when the results of the review are published and the legal background is established, i.e. quarter 1.27. Any projections before that date can only be based on the framework prior to the 14th of the 8th or someone's

00:31:35Best guess, and someone's best guess is not good enough to allow you to take decisions of this importance. I therefore appeal to you again, councillors, in my 14th presentation against the Eximo 20, remove it from this already flawed plan. Do not be browbeaten by those who threaten chaos if the plan is not submitted in its present form. By [member of the public] own admission in the Eximo's journal, we already have a form of chaos. And do not forget that planning permissions are granted by this authority. The planning rules still apply with or without the EXMO20 and with or without a Local Plan. Surely better no plan than this. Use your own adjective.

00:32:21[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.]

00:33:25[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.]

00:34:32Created in such a questionable manner would be politically unwise abstain or vote against this plan you should be saying not on my watch not in my name not least because of your sworn nolan principles of integrity and honesty. Regarding the latest published numbers, whether you move forward with this transitional 21,000 plan or have to go to 24,000, it's irrelevant. You will not achieve either number. The only way out of this tilted balance mess is to justify a reduction closer to the locally recognized need of 14,000. I'm going to sing a song to stick in your mind.

00:35:07I'm talking to the man in the mirror I'm asking him to change his ways because no message could have been any clearer if you want to make his Devon a better place take a look at yourself and make that change na na na na na na na make that change I welcome any questions at the chair's discretion thank you thank you mr shillito I think that's a first for Strategic Planning Committee uh um we're uh our final public speaker please uh mr hart follow that as mr hunter's just said I don't have five speakers listed here I have um

00:36:12[member of the public] listed as a question. If [member of the public] wants to read out that question himself when we get to that point, fine. I will refer to officers on that point in a moment, but as I have asked [member of the public] to speak now, [member of the public], please could you make your statement? Good morning, councillors. Regarding housing numbers, I have seen that other local authorities are proposing lower numbers than the standard method calculations. I watched the BBC News on the 13th of September when Angela Rayner stated that the housing targets were indeed just a target, saying that they have always been a stretch target. This puzzles me, as the Chair Counsel Olive stated at the last SPC meeting that this local authority has, quote, a legal obligation to deliver these homes. To me, this seems to sit at odds with the government's approach and also the NPPF policies.

00:37:13So, could the Chair please verify that statement, as I have not found any legislation legally requiring the level of housing in the plan to contradict Angela Rayner's statement and the NPPF's clear options to justify a reduction. However, I do understand this local authority is the competent authority, as defined in the Habitats Regulations, and it does have a legal duty to ensure no harm comes to protected sites.

00:37:40In short, a development cannot be deemed sustainable if harm cannot be avoided. I've watched a video publication by the Chair, Councillor Olive, stating that Exmouth is the most sustainable place to put new housing in East Devon. But I really struggle to see how that statement can be validated when the town is sandwiched between the internationally protected estuary and the double internationally protected heaths. And the HRA evidence cannot be produced to demonstrate that harm will be avoided, therefore resulting in unsustainable development.

00:38:15[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.]

00:39:00In fact, they wouldn't end up walking at all. They would just get in their cars and drive along the common road, thus polluting the heaths. Please note my prior point about this not being a sustainable development due to the harm caused. It seems the government is not insistent on these houses, and that this local authority is really struggling to demonstrate that this scale of development can be delivered sustainably.

00:39:24The NPPF states that the scale can be reduced if it cannot be done sustainably. So please, please vote to reconsider EXMO20, as there is really no need for it, and it will not result in sustainable development. With today's agenda, you should be open-minded to this amendment. Thank you.

00:39:45Thank you, [member of the public]. Fine. We've only got four speakers on the agenda, and the 15 minutes allows for five three-minute statements. So if you wish to make a statement as well, that's fine. Morning, councillors. First of all, I'd like to pick up on some of the statements made at the last SPC meeting in July, whereby councillors attempted to justify the inclusion of EXMO20 site in the Local Plan on the basis of higher housing numbers and percentages in Axminster and Wimple, a proposed AI data centre in Torridge, and Exmo needing to do its little bit to help.

00:40:37I would like to remind councillors that these proposed developments have absolutely no bearing or relevance on the suitability and sustainability of the highly controversial EXMO20 site. Also, this committee has constantly stated that a change of 100 houses to the plan represents a significant change. This figure has simply been plucked out of thin air. Out of a total of 23,000 houses, 100 represents less than 0.5%. Further, a figure of 700 would still only represent around 3%.

00:41:13These figures are hardly significant. Next, [member of the public] response to the question of how to reduce traffic across the Pebble Bed East. A reduced need to travel. Really? You can't be serious. The train station is four miles away and there's no guarantee that a bus service will be provided or is viable. I'd be very interested to see councillors cycling or walking along the B3179. Suddenwood access to services is hardly a short walk, given the general age demographic for Exmouth.

00:41:50Now as a result of this committee continuing to ignore the genuine objections to EXMO20 an ongoing refusal to consider removing the site from the Local Plan as a group we have been forced to consider our options to that end we have recently set up the stop EXMO20 action group we continue continue to gather public support and have started an online petition which has already topped more than a thousand signatures in the short time it has been running. We have been instrumental in requesting a meeting with our local MP, who at least appears willing to listen to the concerns of local people. And following legal advice, please be advised that a formal letter from our appointed legal representative will be forthcoming within the next few weeks. So, councillors, we ask you once again to remove EXMO20 from the Local Plan.

00:42:49Thank you thank you mr. Edmonds I believe that's all the speakers okay thank you speakers we now have a number of questions that have also been submitted so we are going to go through each of those and read a response into the record we also had one question not related to EXMO20 which was submitted late and we haven't had time to produce a response to that one yet so we will publish a response to that further question via the minutes for the record. So going through each of those questions in turn, firstly from Mr.

00:43:35Humphrey who says, and I quote I've asked numerous questions of the SBC members via email and my speaker slots this year, however I've yet to receive any response from the majority of them for example emails dated 24th february chased up on the 12th july uh 5th of may chased up on the 12th of july and through speaker's notes on the 14th of july relating to the definition of a significant change mr Freeman thank you um so mr humsbury in your email of the 24th february you raised various detailed points in response to the Local Plan update report on the agenda for the Strategic Planning Committee meeting on the 3rd of march specifically you questioned some of the numbers quoted in relation to responses received to the second Reg 19 consultation in answers to that question I can advise that these figures were clearly stated in the report as being estimates as the consultation had only recently closed at that time the final figures were quoted in the feedback report presented to members at their meeting on the 5th of may you had also questioned

00:44:39Whether the air quality impacts on the Pebblebed Heaths are based on worst case scenarios and up-to-date data or assumptions and maybes I can advise that the work is based on realistic modeling of the likely impacts using the most up-to-date data available you also questioned why the report states that no further changes to the plan are envisaged when so many concerns have been expressed including those from statutory consultees the answer to this is that the plan consulted on at the second Reg 19 consultation is the plan the council intends to submit for examination so there's very limited scope for amendment at this stage under the regulations it is for the examination process to consider remaining objections to the plan although we continue to work with statutory consultees to understand and address their concerns you also questioned whether the report summary was accurate in reporting that many of the comments received had repeated comments made in the first regulation 19 consultation even though over two-thirds of those commenting had ticked a box to state that their comments related to the

00:45:41Changes made since the first Reg 19 consultation. In response I can advise that analysis showed that the majority of comments at the second Reg 19 consultation related to the plan as a whole and not specifically the changes made since the previous consultation despite how respondents had answered the question you referred to. In your email of the 5th of May you raised concerns that specific comments you raised in response to our second Reg 19 consultation were not included in the summary that was presented to Strategic Planning Committee meeting on that date specifically your comments that in summary stated that it is not suitable sustainable or viable for eczema to take the levels of growth proposed in the plan in response I would highlight that the feedback report that was presented to that meeting was a summary of the points raised through the consultation and highlights the most frequently raised issues and consequently will not have picked up on every point that every individual will have made. However, please be assured that we will be submitting all of the comments received in full to the examination. I would also highlight

00:46:45That your detailed comments about the impacts of growth on Exmo are reflected in the summary of views included in relation to EXMO20 later in the feedback report. I'm sorry that you did not receive responses to these comments but in future I would advise that these questions should be submitted through this route so that they can be answered in this forum thank you thank you mr Freeman uh second question uh submitted by mr edmunds uh both the inspectorate and standard method calculation sorry just on that first question mr shillito this is not a conversation mr Freeman has responded to the question please take a seat he should apologize Wendy, can you shut off the public speaker?

00:47:24You shouldn't have time, please. This is, Mr. Freeman has just apologised. He said, literally, I quote, I'm sorry that you did not receive responses to these questions. Sit down. This is not a conversation. There's a question, and it has been answered. The question from [member of the public] reads, both the inspectorate and standard method calculation legislation require the latest available figures to be used, with two-year-old data as EDDC is currently using being considered invalid.

00:48:02If EDDC follows this legislation, EXMO20 can be removed and the plan still meet the required numbers. Removing 700 out of 23,000 is arguably not significant and can be easily justified as a reaction to changing standard method numbers and carries notably less risk than having a site which failed HELAA and its inclusion based on multiple procedural errors and the retrospectively created site selection methodology evidence document, all of which will be challenged.

00:48:30This surely appears a less risky option whilst also demonstrating a democratic response mr Freeman so members were advised back in september 2025 that in theory changes to the housing need figures arising from the new standard method mean that we could plan for less housing in the second Reg 19 consultation members were advised the following risks of doing so and I quote the report where it says whilst numbers can go down as they have they can also go up they could do in the future and if they did we may go into plan examination with a numerical deficit. We are already substantially short of meeting the full 100% standard method numbers and this is a matter we have been robustly challenged on however we justify our position in doing so on the strength of the NPPF advising it is allowable but to drop numbers further could lead to greater vulnerability to challenges of not adequately planning for appropriate housing provision. A full drop of 563 as it was at that time or even going some way towards it may well be challenged as amounting to

00:49:36A significant change to the plan and as such this might be seen as being grounds to argue that the first stage of Regulation 19 consultation is invalidated. Members decided not to reduce the housing numbers in the plan and retained EXMO20 as an allocation. The removal of any allocation is likely to be a significant change at this point in plan preparation but to remove a site of 700 homes would in officers opinion certainly constitute a significant change and could not be undertaken at this point without a further Reg 19 consultation which cannot be completed in the time available. To do so would lead to the plan falling outside of the transitional arrangements and the need to abandon the plan and start work on a plan under the new plan making system in accordance with the new much higher standard method housing requirement figures.

00:50:26Its removal at this stage would therefore have significant implications. In any event the concerns about the site have already been fully considered at numerous public committee meetings in an open transparent and democratic way. Having heard the concerns of residents and given them full consideration members on each occasion have decided to continue to allocate the site.

00:50:49Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Questions submitted by [member of the public]. With the current ZEV mandate review, there can be no scientific certainty in Ricardo's work. Furthermore, the assumption that all of EXMO20 will have access through Southern Wood is now not proposed. Therefore, more traffic will pass the pebble beds than the modelling states. In reality, it appears the mitigation, should it be found, will need to be even more onerous than the report may conclude.

00:51:15With such onerous mitigation, is building 700 houses with direct access onto and directly adjacent to the Pebblebed Heath's viable? And what is the timetable to ensure an updated viability report is ready before the end of the year? Bearing in mind EXMO20 could be removed from the plan with the numbers still being sufficient, would this not be a safer, less risky option? Mr Freeman. Clearly there can be no scientific certainty about the uptake of electric vehicles.

00:51:43All we can do and are doing is using the most up-to-date data to project likely uptake of electric vehicles we will need to monitor actual uptake over the planned period and ensure that any mitigations are in place and effective as and when needed to address any impacts on the pebble bed heaves the zero emission vehicle mandate review is only a consultation about changes to the target sets for vehicle manufacturers over the proportion of vehicles produced and how many should be evs it does not affect Ricardo's work which is based on fleet forecasts which may or may not be affected by any changes to the mandate in the future if the plan is found sound then in all likelihood we would need to monitor future air quality impacts on the Pebblebed Heaths and ensure that any mitigation is appropriate having regard to any changes in the uptake of EVs that may arise from changes in government policy or other factors in the future I'm not clear why you are saying that access through southern wood is not now proposed however the draft Local Plan continues

00:52:45To allow for modest levels of development to be accessed this way my report at item 8 on this agenda addresses the point about when reports will be available and in terms of your point about potential to remove EXMO20 from the plan as I mentioned in my response to bill edmund's question members were advised back in september 2025 that in theory changes to the housing need figures arising from the new standard method mean that we could plan for less housing in the second Reg 19 consultation. Members were advised of the risks of doing so and decided not to reduce the housing numbers in the plan and retained EXMO20 as an allocation. Thank you Mr Freeman. Question from [member of the public]. EDDC as the competent authority has ignored the expense requirements that are supporting HRA slash appropriate assessment is a prerequisite to commence the Regulation 19 stage And Mr. Freeman is now contradicting his own understanding, stated in his email to you all last December, that a compliant appropriate assessment is needed for inspector examination.

00:53:46[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.]

00:54:57As the shortfall can instead be met by the natural reduction in population. With the government stating that the housing figures are aspirational rather than mandatory, with Angela Rainer stating that they have always been a stretch target, why, when other LPAs seek to apply the NPPF justified reductions, does this local planning authority believe it is legally bound to provide the evidently unsustainable level of housing in the current draft plan?

00:55:27Thank you chair. The government standard method for calculating housing need does not consider birth and death rates but is instead based on a 0.8% uplift on the existing housing stock with an adjustment to reflect the affordability of housing in the locality. Government guidance is clear in paragraph three of the planning practice guidance that the standard method should be used to assess housing needs. It goes on to recognise that in some specific circumstances an alternative approach could be justified but these do not apply in East Devon the committee considered a report at their meeting on the 5th of September 2023 that considered the potential to pursue a Local Plan that met a lower housing need figure than that set by the government standard method the report concluded that there was little evidence to suggest that a robust case could be made the report included assessment of the cases others have made and the risks of pursuing a lower housing need figure including the plan being found unsound members resolved to accept the recommendation but to keep the matter under review nothing has materially changed on

00:56:34This issue since then we continue to pursue a plan that complies with the standard method albeit we are progressing the plan under transitional arrangements set under an old version of the national planning policy framework to keep the housing requirement thousands of homes lower than it would otherwise be if the new method were applied. The council has also written to the local MPs to press for a change in government policy on this issue. Thank you Mr Freeman and our last question for this morning from [member of the public]. I commented on the documents presented in the regulation 19 consultations with requests to speak to the inspector at the relevant chapters. I understand that if I had not done this I cannot speak to the inspector regarding those parts. I may wish to raise points regarding the air quality mitigation, Habitats Regulations assessment, west end transport assessment and water cycle study that will be submitted to the inspector but I understand you have no intention of undertaking a consultation regarding these new documents.

00:57:36How will I be able to raise any concerns to the inspector and how will statutory and non-statutory consultees know or be able to comment? Is producing all of these significant documents and sending them straight to the inspector with no Regulation 19 consultation, lawful and democratic. Mr Freeman. It is common practice and necessary for a local planning authority to amend and update its evidence base even after it has completed consultation at Regulation 19 stage.

00:58:08This is to ensure that the Local Plan examination is informed by the most up-to-date and robust evidence. We have been open and transparent about the work that we are doing and will publish it once it is complete. We are also engaging with relevant statutory consultees in undertaking this further work. According to our records, you formally objected to strategic policy SD01, and so you have a right to be heard at the examination on that policy and the evidence that relates to that policy.

00:58:38Okay, thank you, Mr Freeman. And as I said at the outset, we also received a further question after the deadline, which we will take a look at and publish a response to in the minutes. that brings us to the end then of agenda item four on public speaking so we will move through the remainder of the agenda agenda item five matters of urgency there are none and agenda item six confidential or exempt items again there are none on the agenda today which brings us then to agenda item seven the community infrastructure levy working party notes for the meeting of 14th july 2026 mr Freeman so uh before you have the uh working party minutes you'll see that um there are various issues discussed um including the current position in terms of uh sill um which is uh detailed on pages 11 and 12 uh and there's a number and um in relation to that uh there was a recommendation to the committee that a further sill bidding round to be opened on the 1st of

00:59:46November to close on the 31st of january for projects identified in the idp list with a minimum project value of 200 000 um so this enables um spend in the coming financial year uh there was then discussion about spending strategy protocol which had come out of a swap audit um but it was resolved that that shouldn't be a priority at the present time um and then there was discussion around parish meetings and how spend through parish meetings rather than parish councils could be accommodated.

01:00:21And you'll see, again, there's a recommendation to... Well, there's some resolutions about being permitted in relation to specific spend. I won't go into those details. They're in the agenda. But I think the main recommendation for the committee is around this new recommendation for still bidding round to be opened on the 1st of November and put that recommendation to the committee. Thank you chair. Thank you Mr Freeman before I come out on a wider basis to questions sorry and I'm going fast at first this time could I just check please there are a number of recommendations in the report the one that I think you've highlighted Mr. Freeman is on page 12 of the agenda pack regarding the opening of the next CIL bidding round but I note that there are also recommendations on pages 13 and 14 of the agenda pack for a total of five recommendations across the minutes. Is it only that first recommendation that committee needs to specifically endorse this morning or do we need to endorse, consider endorsing I should say, all five

01:01:31Of those I don't know if that's a mr Freeman question or a mr hunter question I was actually thinking that chair as I was reading through them and thinking the seal member working party I stand to be corrected by mr hunter but it's not a decision-making body so I think all of those uh actually need a resolution from the committee um but despite the the minutes not saying that As I was just saying then, the minutes that we're looking at with regards to item 7,

01:02:21There is one specific resolution there that we spoke about earlier when I was giving advice to members about the Silbini Mound being opened up on the 1st of November. that's been referred specifically to Strategic Planning Committee but as you pointed out there are other further matters and resolutions mentioned further down so I think it will be sensible for this committee to consider those as well and to to discuss and make any appropriate votes in respect of those as well thank you okay thank you mr hunter hopefully that is clear to everyone on committee that we are looking at all five of those recommendations therefore rather than just that first one uh so I will now come to outside of committee for questions first and uh Councillor Barlow it wouldn't be an East Devon meeting if we didn't come to you first so your questions please thank you very much chair I think that's true I won't be here tomorrow um I'm on the on the sill thing I I was at that meeting uh the next still bidding around be open

01:03:25On the first of november I totally agree with that that was great for projects identified in the idp list I thought that we actually said that we wanted them to be spread more equally and that they weren't necessary like for instance the xmas uh community rugby club or something that they wanted to put in which was put in the last so but that wasn't on my my understanding was it wasn't on the idp list it might have been one of the things that we wanted to concentrate on sports but I just wanted to clarify that this is open to other projects not just ones on the idp list Thank you.

01:04:03Worth adding, that was my recollection of what we had agreed as well, Councillor Barlow. I wonder if Mr Freeman shares that recollection. To be honest, Chair, you've got me wondering. Now, I thought we had specifically wanted to have a narrower scope to this particular bidding round, given the lower amount of money that's available compared to the previous round. I think previously we had about £11 million last time, whereas obviously we've only had a further year, 18 months, of collecting funds, so we're at about £2.6 million this time.

01:04:43So I thought the discussion was around having a more focused bidding round that was specifically about items on the IDP list. But obviously it's within the committee's gift to amend that, if you're so minded. My understanding was that that's why we put the £200,000 in, and there had to be projects that were, say, shovel-ready, but certainly that we could prove they could be delivered within a set time.

01:05:14But again, I think the issue was the amount of money, so therefore, if we didn't do that, it wouldn't be seen, because in the IDP, there are usually bigger things that would just be totally wasted and lost and would make no difference to any of them. So I thought the committee wanted it to go, sorry, the working group wanted it to go back and say we would rather it spread and do smaller projects that actually would make a difference to the community rather than get lost with Devon County Council doing two metres of a highway or something.

01:05:45It was definitely my recollection, Ian, that we didn't put a requirement on them being in the IDP list. Definitely my recollection as well. Mr. Freeman reports that he is not precious, so perhaps we'll come to that in a minute when we get to recommendations. Other questions from outside committee, please. Councillor Collins.

01:06:05Thank you, Chair. The minutes of this still working party. Item three, the fourth paragraph, refers to Honiton. It says the remaining £400,000 earmarked for you football bitches. Because it's going to be kept there, but they didn't get planning permission. And if they had planning permission, that contravenes much of your policies, which has been discussed at strategic planning. It's in an area of outstanding natural beauty, national landscapes, we call it now.

01:06:56And it would do so much devastation to the wildlife up there and it's so dangerous to get this, it's narrow roads and you've still got the 400,000 there when East Devon Council over 20 years ago purchased 13 acres of land from Cooma State at Hain Lane for sports pitches That land is still there, owned by East Devon Council. You have over 20 buses a day passing there, and it's sustainable.

01:07:33Could I clarify what your question is, please, Councillor Collins? Why keep that money in? Why don't you use it for somewhere that's more sensible to put football pitches? Or use it on the existing pitches? 400,000 would pay for their changing rooms and everything else. So the question is, why was that the recommendation from officers, I believe? Mr Freeman. Obviously, as Councillor Collins says, the planning permission was refused.

01:08:07It was primarily because of concerns about stray balls from the adjacent golf course and health and safety risk of balls landing in an area that was shown to be youth football pitches. And we asked for a ball strike survey to understand those issues and what mitigations might be needed, and that information was not provided. So it was felt when attending the Seel Member Working Group that that issue could potentially be overcome, or in this case they also have a right of appeal against that decision, and therefore having already committed those funds to that project it would be wrong to withdraw them without giving the applicants adequate time to either appeal that decision or provide the required additional information resubmit the application so the intention was to leave that money earmarked for that project until such time as it it couldn't come forward because they either hadn't pursued it further or that they had not been successful in terms of an appeal or a resubmission so that was the that was the thinking behind that thank you mr Freeman are there any

01:09:16Further questions from outside committee please no okay in which case then we come inside committee and as is tradition Councillor Faithfull has his hand up first thank you chair um there's comments in here about the impression that more money is being spent on the west end to the rest of the district is it do we have or can it be available the total amount of seal money across the district so that we get a full picture of how much is spent where I imagine the answer to that will be we will need to provide those figures subsequently but mr Freeman um well we issue an infrastructure funding statement at the end of each year um setting out uh what we've received and what we spent during that year so that will come to this committee probably at your next meeting actually because we need to publish that by the end of this calendar year um so yes that that information will be made available through that that route okay thank you any further questions from committee

01:10:28Please, Councillor Olly Davey, Jess Bailey, Paula Fernley, in that order. Thank you, Chair. I'm looking at the resolution, the last one, that town and parish councils be permitted to retain SIL funds beyond five years. My understanding always was that we could be challenged by the developers who'd actually provided that SIL funding if we hadn't spent it within five years. So, is it okay for us to allow town and parish councils to hold that spending beyond five years?

01:11:05Could that leave us open to challenge from developers? Councillor Chesbilly. Thank you. It's more of a general question, and it's about the way the reports are now being written. And maybe this has been explained in some other forum, but it seems to me that the recommendations are now kind of really difficult to find. And for this particular report, I would have expected there to have been a covering report with the recommendations clearly set out that came through for the minutes, and all we've got is just the minutes.

01:11:44So it's really around the change. I don't understand why our reports are being written differently. You have to hunt the recommendations, and why for this one there's no clear – well, it's not clear to me. It's like a series of resolutions kind of jumbled in in some minutes. So, yeah, just a question around that, please. Okay, thank you, Councillor Furnley. And then we'll come to Mr. Freeman.

01:12:10A couple of more general questions again. Somewhere in the report it says that lessons were learned in the first round, and I'd quite like to know what those lessons were. And now that LGR has paused, do we need to may we need a formal strategy to be considered um or are we still happy that we don't need a formal strategy thank you okay thank you councillors mr Freeman some nice meaty questions for you uh thank you chair um yes if we come back to Councillor Davey's question um so still isn't refundable after five years I think um social 106 monies we often had clauses in that required the monies to be refunded after a period of time if we hadn't spent it, particularly sports and play pitch monies tended to have a clause in depending on what the developer was agreeable to fundamentally in each individual case but that's not the case with SIL but the SIL regulations do allow us to ask for neighbourhood proportion of SIL back if it's not spent by the town or parish council within five years

01:13:23Which is why the issue was being discussed by the panel because we're now in a situation where some of the town and parish councils have had money for five years um and not spent it so we wanted a steer on on how we should deal with that and so that uh third uh recommendation under that item was about um how we deal with that and uh it was felt that there was a need to have a clear infrastructure delivery plan or a neighbor plan demonstrating a program for how that money would be spent so it wasn't just sat there doing nothing there was a clear strategy for how that would be spent um and that there we set a timeline for a specific project to be funded um which was due to commence within 12 months so that we weren't taking the monies back but we were setting a framework in to ensure that that money was spent in good time fundamentally um so that's the thinking behind that uh recommendation um in terms of uh Councillor Bailey's comments um so yes so the the

01:14:26Standard committee report template was updated a couple of months ago and um it perhaps needs some refinement so perhaps feedback um through our democratic services offices would would be helpful in terms of of refining that um in terms of this particular report I I don't think we've ever done a covering report when we've brought still working party minutes through but it's probably not happened that often but I don't think we usually have a covering report but it's certainly something we can look at in future if that's something members would like to see and appreciate you haven't actually got the reports that the working party considered which would also have helped so I can see why that would have been helpful in this case so apologies should have thought of that In terms of Councillor Fernandes' comments, lessons to run from the first round.

01:15:21Yeah, I mean, I think the main lessons were around sort of having a clear scope to what we were wanting bids on and what we weren't. I don't think we'd set any kind of minimum project cost threshold um or even specifically um said that they had to be idp projects previously so we did end up with quite a lot of bids particularly from local sports clubs and things that weren't really what we were looking for and then sort of managing expectations from there was perhaps difficult because there was an expectation that we were going to fund projects that we would perhaps more naturally have thought would be lend themselves to neighborhood proportion of sill because they were small local sports clubs rather than larger strategic projects um and that then led to issues of sort of helping people through the process and the guidance that we had in terms of how to complete the form and submit a bid which is something we're looking to address this time in terms of having much clearer guidance um out there to to support people in terms of that process and

01:16:29Minimize um sort of demand coming in people asking questions of us we we now know the sorts of questions last time generated to do a sort of frequently asked questions and the guidance note and to help people uh up front this time um which links into actually the second question about the formal strategy which I think we felt it was more important that we did that work in terms of guiding people in terms of how to make bids and how to access funds and that side of things um I think the swap audit was talking about um more sort of thinking ahead in the strategy for spend and things and the thinking at that time was that with lgr coming there wasn't much point spending a lot of time looking that far ahead because we weren't expecting to be here as a council in 18 months time I take your point about lgr now being paused and that's perhaps something once we know what is happening with lgr we might need to revisit um and and can consider

01:17:28Again if lgr is paused for longer or doesn't happen um and perhaps consider that again at a future meeting of the working party in that wider context but within the context of what we knew at that point with the council coming to an end in 2028 it didn't seem a priority and I don't think anything's fundamentally changed since then we're just on pause and need more information to to revisit at that okay thank you mr Freeman are there any further questions from committee no okay in which case we move to um debate on the recommendations um and just reflecting um Councillor Barlow's point earlier um regarding our recollection of the meeting I will propose all five recommendations within the report from the chair save that in the first recommendation uh to strike the language four projects identified on the idp list hopefully that's uh that's clear for everybody um are there any any comments any points members wish to make on these please Councillor Firmly I'm I'm I'm advised to seek a seconder Councillor Howard seconded it thank you

01:18:57Councillor Howe Councillor Firmly thank you um I just wanted to make comment on the amount of money that my parish, Broadcliffe Parish Council, has squirrelled away its bank account and the difficulties that it is having on finding a project to spend it on. And there are projects. It's just that we don't have the land at the moment to put things on. For example, the new communities of Typhoon and Westcliffe have no community spaces.

01:19:30There's a possibility of things coming up in the future. and we have a sports pavilion which is overdue and hopefully we'll get planning permission shortly and money will be needed to spend on that facility which presumably will use sales. So I'm glad that Broadcliffe hasn't lost its ability to hang on to money for a bit longer but it will be hard for it to... There is a possibility that it could have it longer than five years and not have an actual plan because say this planning commission on the sports pavilion hasn't come through in time so that worries me slightly but then you say that the money if east seven do call it back it then would be spent in the parish I just wanted to clarify that I believe that's requirement to the regulations isn't it mr Freeman I'd have to check in terms of the regulations where money's come back that's in a big proportion but I think that's the logic yeah that was certainly what we talked about at the meeting yes I don't think there would be any desire to expropriate funds

01:20:47Elsewhere but perhaps we can yeah we'll check that and get back and if that needs if that needs bringing back we will bring it back are there any other comments on these recommendations please no okay in which case then we'll move to a vote on those please members can I ask all those in favor please that's 10 in favor those against please and those abstaining one okay thank you members that is Carrie okay just in view of the fact that the next report is likely to be a relatively chunky one and in view of the fact we've been going an hour and 10 already and we do try and take a break around every 90 minutes we're going to take a five minute break now members and we'll resume at a quarter past 11. Could I ask members to take their seats please as we're going

01:29:51To get back to the meeting okay thank you members we will pick up where we left off with agenda item

01:30:43Eight please Mr Freeman thank you chair so members will be aware that I was hoping to be in a position to present plan to you for submission for examination at today's meeting unfortunately we're not quite in that position yet for in relation to the three main pieces of work mentioned in the report which I'll just quickly talk you through where we are with those so obviously members will be aware that water cycles issues particularly wastewater capacity have been a major issue during production of this plan and we had the water cycle study produced by Haskoning and we published that as part of the Reg 19 consultation at the end of last year following feedback on that from the Environment Agency and also the fact that much of the modelling of that was was done about 18 months before that we have commissioned Haskoning to do some updated modelling in terms of wastewater capacity as part of an update to the water cycle study. This also gives us an opportunity to address concerns expressed by the Environment

01:31:54Agency and to a lesser extent Southwest Water about the modelling methodology used. Haskoening used what's called river quality planning modelling because they didn't believe the data was available at that time to do what is a more holistic and up-to-date approach which is this SAGES SimCat modelling that the report refers to, which as I say takes up a more holistic approach to modelling the impacts of multiple wastewater treatment works that discharge into the same river catchment. So hopefully this will give us both more up-to-date but also a more accurate and holistic modelling of the impacts of wastewater on the water environment to give us a more up-to-date and robust evidence base for the plan and satisfy the Environment Agency's concerns that were expressed through the consultation.

01:32:49So I'm not expecting this to necessarily change the plan. We already have adequate policy provision in the plan, you will recall, in terms of policy that ensures that developments where there isn't sufficient future capacity cannot come forward until that capacity is made available and so that that policy remains in the plan and is effectively a gateway through which developments can only pass if there's adequate capacity as a wider issue there's also the issue of providing a wastewater capacity at and we've had further discussions with southwest water on those issues they are currently doing some options analysis in terms of whether they look at provision of a new surge treatment works or major improvements that the existing Countess Weir works and they would they acknowledge need to be major improvements it's not something that can just be accommodated without quite substantial changes at Countess Weir but those options need to be fully assessed and they're also looking at options about how they can free up capacity in the meantime as well to address the more immediate

01:34:00Issues in terms of capacity at Countess Weir as well. So that work is ongoing and needs to feed into this process as well. As I mentioned we've got strategic policy AR02 in the plan that covers off these issues so this is more about having a robust and up-to-date evidence base for the plan rather than any changes to the plan itself. So just turning to the Pemberwood Heads and Air Quality Assessment issues, so I had hoped that we'd be further advanced with this critical issue by today.

01:34:33The delay really has been because Ricardo's second round of modelling, which members will recall was mentioned at the previous meeting, they had undertaken one of the assessments in relation to a threshold that it turned out that Natural England were not in agreement with so having done that modelling and then run all of that past Natural England we then had to ask them to redo part of the modelling to align with Natural England's agreed thresholds and so that slightly delayed the work we now have consultant ecologists out doing walkover surveys of the areas of the habitat where we cannot rule out significant effects from air quality impacts as the report says that that amounts to about one percent of the total area of the habitat so it is a tiny proportion of the habitat but it is essentially a few areas alongside the roads where air quality impact is at its worst and where that is potentially having a significant effect on the habitat but without actually going out and actually doing walkover surveys of the habitats in that area we

01:35:42Don't know whether there's important habitat in those areas and what if any impact air quality is having on them because the work to date has has been a modeling exercise basically based on air quality assessments and impacts so that works on go we should have some initial findings of that imminently to understand what that means and then what that means in terms of potential mitigation measures which will need to be tailored to the habitats that are then found and understanding when and how mitigation needs to be applied so that work is at an advanced stage and we should be in a position to to bring that to you at the next meeting and then finally in terms of west end focus of transport assessment work I've mentioned this previously in previous update reports I think we're at quite an advanced stage in terms of mitigation impacts with 3 300 homes at Marlcombe that are planned within the planned period and I think we don't foresee any any major issues there in terms of reaching agreement with the

01:36:52Highway authority both the county council and national highways the wider issue is that the The plan obviously allocates growth for up to 8,000 homes at Marlcoome, and it's that longer term, beyond the planned period, what would the mitigations be, which is obviously more challenging in terms of understanding how much we will move and how we will move as a population post-2042, and given how much the world has changed in the last 20 years, 15, 20 years, it's very difficult to know.

01:37:25But it's understanding what potential mitigations would be needed in that time frame and what those would look like. Again, there's quite a lot of design work going on in terms of looking at things like the airport junction, the case that may be roundabout junctions 29 and 30. Not yet in a position to present the proposals, but I think we're moving forward quite well with that work. again this is an issue in terms of the longer term and evidence-based rather than changes to the plan itself and is really about reaching agreements primarily I think with national highways in terms of a statement of common ground that can be submitted with the plan to give the examination reassurance that these issues can be adequately mitigated in the process of considering the plan and therefore the allocation of 8,000 homes at marcoombe so um as I say this this report is really just an update in terms of progress on those key areas um as I say work is getting to an advanced stage in all of these areas so

01:38:29Um all being well this should come together over the next couple of months and we should be in a position to present the plan for submission for examination before the end of the year and and still come in under the transition arrangements which is obviously our key objective here um so that's the recommendation uh which is at paragraph 6.1 at bottom of page 25 uh happy to take any questions thank you chair thank you uh mr Freeman um I will uh I will go outside committee first as usual in a moment could I just remind members um that questions need to be about what is addressed in the report uh not any and every issue around the Local Plan that you might arbitrarily decide that you want to discuss today so please do keep yourselves focused on the progress update that is in this report and with that said do any members outside of committee wish to ask any questions which is usually a rhetorical question uh Councillor Barley thank you chair um I'm just fascinated I sort of read especially the air quality report

01:39:35That basically from what I can see there's been four five different consultations on this as far as I could read it there, and it basically comes to the conclusion that they can't prove it's a danger or a thing, but they also can't prove it isn't a danger or a thing. And I just wondered, if you just put it in, is that the sort of thing the inspector would look at and go, well, okay, that needs a bit more work done on it.

01:40:06Are we waiting to put in the perfect plan, and we keep waiting? It's like Groundhog Day. I don't know how many times I've been here now. The next six months we've had to delay it because of X, Y, Z. Are we doing this search for perfection and it comes at the cost of actually getting a good plan delivered? And the other one, you may tell me that I'm going ahead, but with the issue of the housing numbers, does this mean that the 20% extra we've got to find takes away the 20 percent we've saved in the first place and are we I'm not being very good at that but it is it is it basically we've got to now find more which means yeah we we are we are getting to the point that the longer we leave this the worse it seems to get every time thank you council but I will pick up the second one when we come to the next report and discuss those issues specifically because I think mr Freeman's report itself might pick up the answer

01:41:05To it Councillor Collins did you have any questions about this report I can't find the river otter in this report can you tell me which paragraph it is please okay thank you uh mr Freeman answers to those two questions please um well if we can come back to Councillor Barlow's question um I don't think we're waiting for the perfect plan it's about having an acceptable Habitat Regulations assessment which um as I mentioned earlier in answer to one of the public's questions is a legal requirement for plan adoption um so we need to and we have to take a precautionary approach when it comes to habitats impacts so where the work has got to at the moment is that we can't rule out a significant effect on that one percent of the habitat that is affected by air quality issues and we need to be able to do that or we need to provide mitigation to address that impact um so in terms of the time scale um we have to submit the plan by the end of the year

01:42:17Fundamentally um but I'm still confident that we can get to the point of an acceptable Habitat Regulations assessment before that that point and that has to be the goal um because as I said it's clear from the guidance that we should have an acceptable hri at the point of submission of the plan and that has to be that's the goal we're working to so it's not about having a perfect plan but it's about minimizing the risks at the examine through the examination process as much as we can by getting this work as advanced as we possibly can prior to submission um in terms of Councillor Collins comment I've just done a quick search I can't find any reference to the river otter in in in this report I don't think there's uh specific references to specific water courses the the section on the water cycle study is quite a general overview of of the work um I'm not sure if there's a particular issue in terms of the river otter that the council collins wanted to pick up but there isn't a reference in the report the river otter

01:43:28When I'm 75 years old and I've studied that river after all my life and there's Is this a question about the progress update, Councillor Collins? There's very little water there, and there's so much pollution coming from Hornet and Sewage. Councillor Collins, is this a question about the progress update, or are you trying to make a point about the...

01:43:46Thank you, Councillor Ingham. I'm the chair, I will run this meeting, and I don't need any help from you. Councillor Collins, do you have a question about the progress update? Well, I'm disappointed it's not there, because it's concerning so many residents in East Devon. And I get questions asked of me all the time. Councillor Collins, this is a progress update. The version of the water cycle study we have is out there and talks about the River Otter in some detail.

01:44:14This is a progress update on further work that is being doing on that area. I'm going to move us on. Councillor Bartlow. Just coming back on the point of what Mr Freeman has just said there of getting it as close as we can, the air quality report affects one percent of one area that may or may not be a danger to one percent of it how close to perfect do you have to get to actually make it believable I I you know usually when you you do something it's like well okay it's 99 there that's good enough you go forward but you're talking about finding something for one percent and I know it affects certain ones more than other certain applications but you know one percent of a of an area I you know you are it seems to me that we're going for perfection you've had four or five different consultants in this and no one can actually agree how to do it because it's something new that you're following could I could I is there a follow-up question in there ian the the the question the question is so sorry

01:45:24Councillor Barlow, please don't do that for the second time now. Thank you. Councillor Collins did not have a follow-up question. He wished to make a statement about the River Otter, which is not relevant to this report. Please, could you desist from those really unhelpful comments? Thank you. Councillor Barlow, did you have a follow-up question, please?

01:45:47No. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Barlow. questions from inside committee thank you Councillor Faithfull I'll allow it Councillor Collins but but we had just moved inside committee thank you chair how much are these reports costing for the air quality and the water study I'd like to know what it's costing this council to pay these outside bodies to do them thank you okay thank you Councillor Collins we'll take a few more questions before we come back. Councillor Faithfull. Thank you, Chair. I have got quite a few questions on each individual part, the three parts that we're talking out. So is it all right to do the lot or do you want them in slots? If you give us a few and then perhaps we can come back. What cycle, shall we? Will we have both sets of information, the individual sewage treatment works and the general one that the Environment Agency and Southwest Water are asking for because as a planning authority each individual sewage treatment works is important to us because each planning application feeds into one it doesn't feed into a general one and whether or not they

01:47:11Should be allowed should be part of the whether they're over capacity the sewage treatment works for that planning application to me is important so it's whether that both parts of information the original and the present the proposed one is any action plan to take place to upgrade any other sewage treatment works or because there's one at the airport that's not discussed in the what I've seen in the water cycle study I don't think And that's a question about the progress update, really, Councillor Faithfull.

01:47:49Well, the last part is relevant to County Swier, which relates to paragraph 2.5 and 2.7 of what I see, and maybe 2.8 as well. What evidence do we have that County Swier can handle the present sewage capacity? that's why I was asking Wendy to bring up Google satellite there's a whacking great cloud isn't Google satellites is in clear air no rain and there's a zonking great cloud going out of Canada's where sewage works into the river into a whatever is an SPA or whatever the estuary so to me it's already over capacity and with you know we're talking about can it handle it in the future we can't handle it present have we got any evidence of what what they do and what they don't do do you want to switch your microphone off peter sorry so on the first point in terms of uh the water cycle study um so the existing water cycle study will still be there I think what we're proposing is an update report that will basically be appended to the existing report so I think the

01:49:14Question was will you have the existing modeling for each wastewater treatment works and the new modeling yes you will be able to see both um and do a comparison um but obviously they're over different at a different point in time so things will potentially have changed aside from the fact that different modeling techniques so we won't necessarily be able to compare the two really um as as I think the chair said I can't really comment on what what actions um southwest water are planning in terms of specific upgrades there are published investment plans and things on their website which might be worth looking at um it's not really for me to comment on that um in terms of counters we're I think the original water cycle study identifies a small amount of headroom at the exist at counters we're as existing um and there's certainly some planned growth uh that can be accommodated there but southwest water have started to raise concerns with applications coming forward now in in the west end of the district in terms of capacity there um so there's

01:50:20Certainly uh one application at the cat and fiddle that uh I think it's 150 houses I think they've objected to and said they can't accommodate the flows from that development um so they are starting to now um object to applications that would discharge the counters we're due to capacity concerns other questions gals are faithful uh your microphone please peter Pebblebed Heaths um can we let's talk about um generating new heathland well to me it's about restoring heathland because a hell of a lot we got old maps like the old tide maps it shows heathland which covered a hell of a lot bigger area and that is what you know the because you have to use the the question please Councillor Faithfull about the wording can we describe it as restoring heathland rather than generate this talking about generating new heathland we're not we're restoring the old heathland because that's what we've lost so much of it's gone to lost the farming um what's the last one And what acknowledgement is shown to the increase in tyre wear, electric cars are recognised as heavier and wearer tyres.

01:51:55And, you know, we talk about all the exhaust fumes. We don't talk about the rest of the pollution from tyres, which is acknowledged by other parties on Heathland.

01:52:05Thank you, Chair. Did you have any more questions, Peter? okay fine thank you um so so on that first point I mean I would highlight that um creating or restoring uh heath land as a mitigation well it wouldn't be a mitigation um which is my point we we should be trying to avoid the impacts on the habitat first of all in terms of air quality impacts um mitigating them if sorry to interrupt mr human I think I've been pretty clear previously about disruptions in the public gallery can you stop please mr Freeman um mitigating them if they can't be avoided and then uh providing replacement or restoring habitat would be a sort of last result we'd have to go down a sort of derogation test from the Habitat Regulations to do that um but in in principle I I agree it would be about restoring habitat rather than generating new we'd be looking at areas of Pebblebed Heath that's been lost uh in in the past and replacing it but we're not there yet we're still at the point of considering mitigation

01:53:19Opposite options indeed understanding the impacts uh through the walkover surveys and then shaping mitigation to do that so that would very much be a last result um in terms of increased tire wear I think this has has come up before um as I say the work that we're doing is about air quality impacts on on Pebblebed Heaths from pollutants such as um nitrogen oxide ammonia and and and air quality issues arising from that rather than from um you know rubber deposits or anything from from tire wear um so I'm not aware that that's an issue particularly um in in terms of the habitat um I take the point that um electric cars are heavier and and therefore generate different tire wear issues.

01:54:07But that's not an issue that's been flagged with us as a concern in terms of impact on the habitat in Natural England.

01:54:14Thank you, Mr Freeman. Councillor Faithfull, transport presumably next. Oh, there we go. Yes. What changes are proposed for the M5 and the... Because we hear about simple changes can be made, but I don't recall ever seeing what sort of changes are proposed to handle the increase in traffic around the M5 and Clistamary, Clistonaton area. And are there any plans to restore, as far as traffic is concerned, Platform 2 at Exmouth? We own the land. We don't own the platform, but we own the land that track was on. I think the first question was a bit borderline, Peter, but question two is definitely nothing to do with this progress update. So I'll allow Mr. Freeman to come back on question one. Are there any other questions for Mr. Freeman to pick up while we do so, please? Councillor Brian Bailey, a question, please. Thank you, Chair. This is relating to Southwest Water. I see in reports rather vague that... Your microphone, please, Councillor Bailey brian your microphone please I beg your pardon the southwest water undergoing

01:55:37An assessment of what works to be done in the future to improve the situation but there's nothing specific there's nothing you can hang your hat on and say safe west water are building for example a new serious system in eczema to cope with all these extra houses there's nothing there it's all speculation which I don't think is is good enough and we've had five water reports um the conclusion is vague to say the least so that that's not a question and neither is it about the progress update Councillor Bailey if you'd like to ask a question about the progress update you're welcome to and the sewerage system do you have a question about the progress update Councillor Bailey No, that was my question.

01:56:26Okay, that wasn't a question. Thank you. Councillor Davey, did you have a question? All right. Okay, I was pleased to see on the top of page 19 that we have quite a good policy in place, or will be in place, strategic policy ARO2. And my first question is, who would be required to demonstrate that a new development would not cause one of the impacts listed there? So who would be required to demonstrate, presumably the applicant?

01:57:19But we know how glibly southwest water will simply say a connection exists and so I would then want to see some stringent assessment so who would then assess that that it actually was true because following the logic of that you wouldn't allow any development in Exmouth at all at the moment and probably quite a few places around here because the sewage So the question, Councillor Davey, is who assesses, who demonstrates also I wanted to ask how realistic, there's a mention of separation of surface water and sewage, how realistic is any capability by Southwest Water to do that are they making any progress on that I know there's been a pilot project in Exmouth but is there any further prospect of any kind of large scale prospect of that particular with regard to countess we are okay thank you Councillor Davey I okay I'll come back to in a minute I think both of those were again a little bit borderline but as there were hooks in the report and I've been generous to Councillor Faithfull uh will allow it so we'll come to mr Freeman please uh for answers on those

01:58:50Questions so far and then we'll take some more okay uh so I think so I neglected to answer Councillor Collins question about the cost of water cycle study in the air quality work um I don't have figures off the off the top of my head um and the work's still ongoing so I don't know what the total cost is until it's completed I mean it's going to be tens of thousands of pounds in terms of consultants uh fees um but we we have to do this work for for the Local Plan and for it to be be robust and sound so I don't see that we have any any choice um happy to provide you with with the full cost at the end when the work is complete but um while the work's ongoing it's um that's that's still costs accumulating um coming back to uh council faithful's comments on transport um what changes are proposed at the m5 clissett mary and cliss honington so their proposals being discussed they're not um something that I can put in the public domain

01:59:53Yet you know we're still in the process of of discussing what those measures would be um but they are obviously um looking at changing the arrangements that the clinton may roundabout and the airport roundabout uh across Honiton um some more minor changes at the m5 junctions and then looking at measures about how we can further promote public transport and sustainable travel in that area through cycle ways um bus lanes public transport corridors etc um so so those are the sorts of things we're looking at um those discussions are ongoing and I hope we'll be in a position shortly where some of that can be put in the public domain but obviously that's quite controversial and needs to be coordinated with Devon County Council and the high res agency um before we put anything in the public domain in terms of all of that um I'm not answering the question about destroying platform to xmf or not that I could um in terms of uh southwest water um so it's just Councillor Davey um so who would need to

02:01:03Demonstrate that development is acceptable well in terms of wastewater capacity um this is a challenge I mean obviously the additional work we're doing with hasconi in terms of the water cycle study will hopefully give us a strong evidence base in terms of um treatment capacity at wastewater treatment works so that we'll have an up-to-date evidence base to say you know according to Asconia's work this wastewater treatment works did not have capacity therefore you're putting additional load therefore that doesn't add up clearly therefore isn't capacity or the study showed that there was capacity we will know what that capacity is how many homes that is to then understand when that capacity is is reached based on the evidence we have so in terms of treatment capacity that should leave us in a strong position it will however only be a single point in time because obviously as we've discussed there are other things that southwest water are doing in terms of trying to direct surface water away and store that or deal with that differently so it doesn't go through the wastewater treatment

02:02:03Works so there is an issue in terms of keeping that work up to date which we will need to take a view on at some point in terms of how we do that and then there's a wider issue in terms of not just the treatment capacity the wastewater treatment works but the transmission infrastructure in between the new homes and the wastewater treatment works and how that capacity is assessed so southwest water when there are concerns on those issues tend to do hydraulic capacity assessments that you might have seen they sometimes submit in response to planning applications so there is a question about how we assess those how can we rely on those those reports which is something that I've literally in the last 24 hours asked Haskoning to consider as part of the additional work that they're doing for us so that is a concern and an issue that we need to take a view on there's also I think an issue here about how through further working with Southwest Water I hope we can get to a position where

02:03:06We can understand their position and trust their position a bit more um so I think there's that strand to this as well because some of this is about their network that we're not necessarily privy to all information about their network and neither are other bodies necessarily like environment agency and others so there is an element of of needing to um work with them I think in terms of all of these issues uh build up an understanding about the trajectories in terms of new housing coming forward and how they would deliver infrastructure in parallel with that to accommodate flows um and keeping lines of communication open and and building up a relationship where hopefully we can they can understand our concerns and and respond to them and we can trust what what they're telling us we're not there yet um but I think through independent verification of a lot of this through the work that hasconi are doing and working together on all of this hopefully we can get to a better understanding um because there are some

02:04:09Things it's just not possible to have independent verification of um so we're working on all of those different strands um and hopefully that will get us to a position that when we are receiving applications and considering them against that policy we do have the information to be assured whether or not there is capacity or not and assess those developments against that policy um and how realistic is it is it to separate out waste and surface water I'm not sure I'm the right person to answer that that's probably a question for southwest water but I know from discussions with them that they are putting a lot of resource into how that they can do that um and and separate out surface water because a lot of the um the sewers particularly outside of of the towns are combined waste and surface water um and you know with with climate change we're getting a lot more extreme wet conditions and that is causing problems uh and can lead to issues with the wastewater treatment works when actually the issue is surface water going through

02:05:18It rather than necessarily more um actual sewage so the more they can direct into storage or direct away from wastewater treatment works the better in in terms of impacts on those issues so I know they are putting a lot of resource into trying to address those issues um and there are various ways of doing that particularly things that we also do through the planning process in terms of sustainable drainage systems on new developments to capture surface water rather than it discharging into um the sewers and that is one of the main things that we can do as a local planning authority is insisting on those those measures so that we're not making that situation worse and then southwest water can focus their resources on dealing with the existing combined sewers and and directing the surface water that's already in the network away from the wastewater treatment works um so hopefully through a combination of those measures that can help to free up capacity that's already there in the way wastewater treatment works so that it can be used to treat sewage

02:06:20Rather than have surface water running through it. So I'm not sure that last bit necessarily answered the question, but hopefully it gives some reassurance. And I think the key point is that we're doing all we can, I think, through the planning process to stop additional surface water going into the network. The rest is up to southwest water, really.

02:06:44Thank you, Mr Freeman. That veered significantly away from our progress update, So I hope your remaining questions, Councillor Davey, take us slightly closer to the wire, please. Well, I hope so too, Chair. This is a quick one. On page 24 under 317, one of the ways you talk about improving air quality across the Pebblebed Heaths is a pretty obvious reduction in the number of vehicles passing that way.

02:07:11You talk about encouraging people to use alternative routes as one of those possibilities, but not encouraging people to use alternative modes of transport and possibly even encouraging people to think about whether their journey is really necessary and also encouraging car sharing, which even as councillors, we do for ourselves, but we're not particularly encouraged to do it.

02:07:40And there's no mechanism for us to do that with it. Okay, I know what you're going to say, Todd, I'm straying. But my point is just, you know, we need to consider all sorts of ways of... Is there a question here, Councillor Davey? Yes. Why aren't alternative modes in there? Okay, thank you. Other questions before we come back to Mr. Freeman? so going through my list I have Councillor Ingham next I think that means it'll come on in a minute so I'll come back to you in just a second Councillor Ingham, Councillor Blakey that possibly means Benz is on so Councillor Ingham do you want to go Mr Freeman was talking earlier about the revised model with regards to South West Water and Haskening or Royal Haskening who we had originally create that model which I recollect all of us were very impressed with and their warnings that they gave us and that's going to be updated and Mr Freeman said that is going to be updated and made more robust so my question is

02:09:13More robust for who because is this to placate Southwest Water and the Environmental Agency because they're the ones who were challenging that if this was raw data provided by an independent voice I'm far more likely to have faith in that accuracy than a revised version perhaps created to placate critics who don't like what was recorded or the manner in which that was delivered in the report how does Mr Freeman excuse placating South West Water and the Environmental Agency through that new report thank you thank you Councillor And could you turn your mic off please um so we will come to uh Councillor Blakey uh for one question please before I come back to mr Freeman yeah there we are thank you chair um can I just ask a question about the um ricardo report on mitigating air quality for the future it's actually under 3.1 methodology and paragraph two which regards to the 2042 future base um in it it says that um the data being used is uh development development associated with the the Local Plan um excluded

02:11:04But it in but the the report includes all known current development and infrastructure So does that mean that development not yet done, let's say, for example, the second half of Cranbrook and Malcom, is not being taken into account when calculating the air quality numbers for their report? because if that is the case I would suggest that 15,000 new dwellings plus all the vehicle movements would make a significant difference as will the congestion that's likely to occur at the motorway junctions. Thank you Councillor Blakey I think that's three questions for you Mr Freeman. Thank you Chair so yes going back to Councillor Davey points about other measures So sort of car sharing and alternative modes. Yeah, I mean, I think the point I'd make is that we're looking at additional measures over and above what we're already doing.

02:12:08So one of the philosophies behind the plan was about trying to focus growth in sustainable locations, minimise the need to travel, promote the use of public transport, etc. so those are measures that are already in the plan um what we need to be doing in terms of specific mitigation of air quality impacts is additional measures over and above what we're already doing um and that's part of the challenge in terms of those those mitigation measures um but it's it's a fair point as to whether or not there are things around car sharing um that that we could do um and other things in terms of minimizing journeys over the habitat we have been in discussion with Devon county councillors the highway authority in terms of things that could be done we are quite limited though in terms of um restrictions in terms of on what basis you can put in sort of weight restrictions or you know various things like that that the acts that they work to mean you have to do them for highway safety purposes uh not to mitigate impacts on

02:13:13A protected habitat so there's not a great deal we can do in terms of those sorts of things but we're still exploring options and obviously that needs to be informed by the walkover survey work I mentioned earlier in understanding what the impacts are what habitats are impacting in what way to then shape the mitigation accordingly. In terms of Councillor Ingham's question I would say uh the principal reason for revisiting the modeling is is to address concerns raised by the environment agency um who in their comments on the Reg 19 plan were raising concerns that the modeling was sort of 18 months old at the point of the consultation um and therefore in their view already out of date and that it didn't use the most up-to-date modeling technique this uh sages sim cap modeling because I don't think the data was available when we first appointed task owning but but it is now.

02:14:09So they were saying we should redo the modelling using that up-to-date data to make sure that it's robust. And it is a more robust modelling technique, which is the other point from the Environment Agency's perspective, is it takes a whole picture view, a holistic view, in terms of the impact on water courses, particularly where you've got more than one wastewater treatment works discharging into the same water course.

02:14:30It's looking more at the cumulative impacts rather than the in-isolation impacts of that wastewater treatment work in the assessment work. So it's about addressing those concerns from the Environment Agency and making sure the work is as robust as possible. Fundamentally, it's not about, you know, trying to respond to southwest water or what they've said. The final point, I think, Councillor Blakey's point about air quality. So my understanding of Ricardo's modelling work is that when they talk about existing development, they're talking about not just built development but also growth that's in existing plans so obviously we've got a growth coming forward that's still coming forward from the old Local Plan and from the Cranbrook plan um so that's all part of the existing as I understand it and then looking ahead is about the planned growth in the new Local Plan so uh to answer your question the the Cranbrook expansion areas should all be within the the existing planned growth that accommodated because we've already had a plan through and adopted an acceptable Habitat Regulations assessment for that plan so that's all

02:15:44Been taken account of already so just to be absolutely clear Cranbrook expansion areas and Malcombe both accounted for by that assessment yes well Cranbrook expansion areas in terms of existing planned growth and then malcombe's part of the modeling of the future growth that is what's in the assessment now yeah so yes yes I was just making the distinction between planned growth in terms of the expansion there was in future yes yes mr Freeman but yes thank you just wanted to be absolutely clear on that one uh for members because we've had that question uh once twice before um okay uh further questions I have on my list at Councillor How thank you I'm just going to come back to the subject we've just been doing air quality and Marlcombe in particular but I want to concentrate on the possible traffic arrangements being proposed to my parish effectively because any traffic arrangement changes to encourage a small uptake in public transport which it will be compared to the growth of eight and a half thousand homes etc etc in my immediate area won't

02:17:00Mitigate the difference in increased traffic being slowed down by said changes and I'm very concerned with a primary school right against the 3052 the question is are we mapping are we as part of the highways perspective changes which we don't know about yet fully are we mapping the expected changes to air quality around those junctions because a lot of people do cycle around Sandy Gate roundabout etc the M5 and that area they have to if they're going to cycle into Exeter they have to go underneath the motorway etc and the stationary traffic that will be caused and is already being caused, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, if you get my meaning.

02:17:49Yes, thank you. Any further questions before we come back to Mr Freeman, please? Everybody puts their hand up. I think I saw Councillor Jess Bailey first and then Councillor Dan Ledger, so we'll take those two and then come back to Mr Freeman.

02:18:05Thank you. So, please could Mr Freeman be really precise under paragraph 3.1, and it talks about the legal test set out by the HRA and adverse impacts, and then later on goes on to talk about mitigation. But can you precisely tell us, please, what as a council our legal requirements are with regards to the SPAs and the SACs?

02:18:30Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bailey. Councillor Ledger. Thanks, Jeff. Specifically on the air quality, mitigation of air quality, the Pebblebed Heaths. So I'm looking at the formula that they're using and I just want to make sure. have they modeled any intermediate years or is it just that 2042 that they've modeled up to it's just to me when they're relying on that kind of ev take up and that being at that 72 percent what is the the intermediate years before that where the take up isn't going to be as high we're going to have a significant proportion of development in those years are we going to have adverse effects in 2030 2035 uh ahead of time and then by the time we get to 2042 the damage is already done I just want to make sure that that's included within our modeling that that ev take up in a staged and phased approach is it counted within the modeling thank you Councillor Ledger mr Freeman those three questions please um so coming back to cancer how's come on I should stress I'm

02:19:51Not an air quality expert um but in terms of um I mean I I take the point about additional flows through the village um or through the roundabout rather on the on the 305 turn impacts on air quality there um all I can really say is I know some years ago we did have an air quality monitoring station there um and I my recollection uh is is that the air quality was actually improving rather than getting worse um as partly I suspect as a result of the uptake of electric vehicles but also the cleaner petrol and diesel vehicles that were coming through um but obviously the flow of traffic and speeds through there will have factors and that's something we will need to monitor again And I suspect moving forward and take measures if the air quality does significantly deteriorate in terms of its impact on on the welfare and health and well-being of residents of the village.

02:20:53But I think it's only through through monitoring that and understanding those impacts that we could possibly do that. I think environmental health have monitoring stations in numbers of places and generate an annual report, which I think I was provided with recently. the latest report on that so I could check and update you separately in terms of what the latest position is um but um it's not something that's been particularly flagged as a concern as I understand it um turning to council just bailey's comments um I mean I don't have the legislation in front of me but fundamentally in terms of the Habitat Regulations we shouldn't be promoting any scheme or project that has a significant effect on on the habitat and that's why um fundamentally we're doing all of this work is to understand what impacts we're having um and as said the air quality assessment so far the modeling work shows that we can't rule out significant effects on that one percent of the habitat as things stand so we need to understand what's in that part of

02:22:01Habitat is there significant habitat in there because just because it's all designated as a SPA and an SAC doesn't actually mean that there's necessarily important habitat in the area that's affected um because the habitat as a whole and the point's been made to me is that obviously at some point whenever that road was cut through the pearl bed heaps there was all sorts of damage done in the creation of that road not just on the path of the road but also the areas either side of it where construction work would have been taking place so the habitat necessarily on the sides of the road is not necessarily established in the same way that some of the rest of the habitat is so that's one of the things we need to understand through these walkover surveys is what's actually there um but fundamentally we we should make sure our plan does not have a significant effect on on the habitat and that's what we're trying to understand in the dress um in terms of council ledger's question uh about the modeling work um yes so the work is modeling

02:23:06The impact over time so we're looking at um the increased growth and development over time in that area the increased uptake of electric vehicles in that area and understanding over time during the planning period at what point do we start to have a significant effect on the habitat at what point does mitigation then need to kick in and all of that is not just a straightforward now 2042 we are mapping how that the growth comes forward and how impacts develop over that time and at what point they reach a point of a significant effect and then we need to tailor mitigation and a mitigation strategy around that so it might be that um well it could be that mitigation won't be needed for the first couple of years of the plan for example and only needs to kick in post 2030 or something I don't know it might be that it's needed straight away it's those sorts of things that we need to bottom out through this this further work that we're doing uh to understand at what point this significant effects occur and then what mitigation

02:24:07Is needed but yeah it's not a straightforward here we are now what will be like in 2042 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Freeman. I have next Councillor Fernley, please.

02:24:25Thank you, Chair. Yes, it's very concerning about the air quality around the Pebblebed Heaths. But what concerns me is when the report talks about not submitting the plan or the plan failing, and how many equivalent areas of EXMO20 would we have to add into a plan if this plan didn't work or we didn't submit? in fairness I'm not entirely sure that's a question about the progress update and I think that's possibly a question mr. Freeman would have to go away and research the answer to anyway so perhaps he can do that but I don't think that's one for today council for me and councillors faithful and Bailey I'm conscious I have come to you both before all right I'll okay go on Councillor Faithfull thank you we haven't got it today so have we got a time scale for when you can expect to have this or can we is there possibly a briefing between now and November those that's starting to get rather tight to I mean We don't want to be having an EGM between Christmas and 31st of December, do we?

02:25:54No, we don't. I can deal with that part of the question.

02:25:58Thank you, Councillor Faithfull, for that question about the progress update. Councillor Bailey, a question, please.

02:26:05Thank you, Chair. I consider it a question. Whether you do, it remains to be seen. My question is, page 18, paragraph 29, there are four things listed regarding planning permission. And it states that planning permission will not be granted to any proposal because of inadequate provision of water services, sewerage, etc. One, causing pollution to water and the environment. Two, resulting in deterioration, ecological and waterways, overloading a series network and pollution to coastal waters.

02:26:51All of which we are doing at present. We are granting permission, knowing that these things... Your question, please, Councillor Bailey. So why, my question is, why is this basically, in my opinion, untruth put into this report? That's definitely not a question about the progress report, Councillor Bailey. That's a question about a policy that we agreed at Strategic Planning Committee some time ago to deal with issues around the provision of wastewater treatment capacity.

02:27:19So, Mr Freeman, could you come back to Councillor Faithfull's question, please? Yes, thank you, Chair. so in terms of timescales um I'm expecting um the walkover surveys in terms of the Pebblebed Heaths uh within the next week or 10 days uh fundamentally that then needs to feed into um the Habitat Regulations work that footprint ecology are doing depending on what that says in terms of the walkover surveys and the mitigation so um we will certainly know more in the next two to three weeks and obviously we'll endeavour to keep members appraised to progress in terms of that in terms of the water cycle study, again I'm expecting the updated modelling in the next week or so so again I think we can keep members up to date, we don't necessarily need a committee meeting to do that, I can send emails out to you all and update you as progress develops and yes I would hope that before we get to the date of the november meeting when I we really need to bring the plan to you to to to uh agree for for submission that we will need to

02:28:33Think through uh sort of briefings on those key issues bearing in mind the technical nature of them um and and how that happens um I don't it was started to have an initial discussion myself in the chair um we need to take that forward and and sort of set that out I would suggest um when we when we know more in terms of the consultants working in the next couple of weeks if it's very brief Councillor Ledger just on that line of you saying that you'll let members know is it possible that we are sent it as soon as possible so that we can actually scrutinize it ahead of time because the actual volume that I'm expecting to receive it's going to be very difficult if that's only received one week before an actual committee meeting so can we just have a commitment to that can it also be put on our website as well early enough so that members of the public can accurately scrutinize it as well mr Freeman says yes okay uh an hour after we

02:29:39Started this report I'm going to take us into debate uh and I'm going to propose uh the recommendation that set out in the report that we note the ongoing work and agreed to it progressing further um in view of how extensively we have already examined this report and the points in it can I remind members that the constitution says you can speak once in a debate I'm going to try and keep us on course here but the first thing I need to do is look for a second of the recommendation please thank you Councillor How members does anybody wish to comment on the substance of this report please Councillor Collins on the substance of the report which is the progress update please Well, we are under water restrictions here. There's a hosepipe ban. Southwest water should be renamed Southwest water profit, because that is their only motive. I can see that concerns them is to make the maximum profit for their shareholders. Now, they sold off.

02:30:54Councillor Collins, again, is this relevant to the progress update that's in front of us? I appreciate there are strong feelings about these issues, but the report in front of us is a progress update on work on the Local Plan. This is about the umpteenth time I've said this. Can we please keep comments to the report that is in front of us? I want to speak about the water situation in East Edmund.

02:31:18The report that's in front of us is not about the water situation, Councillor Collins. it's a progress update on work on the Local Plan Councillor Collins I'm sorry this report is about a progress update, it's not an opportunity for us to all wax lyrical about how appalling Southwest Water's performance is as much as I might agree with that Councillor Jess Bailey Thank you, I'd like to comment on paragraph 3.17 and the explored mitigation options I'm afraid I don't don't think that's actually going to achieve anything uh how's East Devon district council going to uh mitigate I think that's just not realistic uh that's government that's county that's everybody else but as a district council we I just cannot see that that's actually going to uh whatever efforts we put into that it's not going to mitigate I don't think it's not going to reduce the number of internal combustion engines so I am concerned about the air quality and I don't have any confidence that 317 is going to help I'm afraid. Councillor Ledger did I see your hand did I know I just imagined it okay does anybody else

02:32:47Wish to speak Councillor Blakey. Thank you chair it's almost a question in regard to paragraph eight options where the options are put that we have the option to either scrap this entire plan and start again or to leave matters until the LGR is taking place whenever that may be if ever now I just wonder whether we ought to get those out of the way before we vote on the the recommendation as um as supported um for what it's worth my view is that neither of those are viable I I think in fairness Councillor Blakey if members wish to reject the recommendation that I've proposed and that has been seconded and posit one of those instead they're quite welcome to um but we we do have a recommendation in front of committee uh to proceed with the work that that's ongoing um so procedurally we we need to take that first um members any other hands please Councillor Davey thank you um yeah I just want to thank you for the report um particularly page 21

02:34:02Um which actually explains why road traffic across the heaths is not a good thing um but I'm inclined to agree with Councillor Bailey my perception is that road traffic is just ever increasing and hoping that the uptake of electric vehicles will increase it I'm sure it will but it's going to take some time and it's certainly not going to be enough so we need to really try and ensure that in our plan we are making every effort particularly with new developments to encourage alternative modes of transport. And I also wanted to thank you for really explaining what the effects are in terms of nitrogen oxide and ammonia, and teaching me a new word, which is ruderal, which I shall remember the next time I'm looking at the crossword. I had to look that one up.

02:35:07So a ruderal species is one that is quick to colonize and tends to stifle other rarer and less. I've got a few of them in my garden, I have to say, so I know what the effects are. So, yeah, thank you for that. And I think we do, the plan really needs to show that we are serious about trying to mitigate the effects on the Pebblebed Heaths.

02:35:37Councillor Faithfull. Just clarifying that you were saying that we were progressing this and not abandoning it, as was suggested in part eight. The recommendation is as set out in the report, not one of the alternative options. Mr. Freeman, we've had some concerns positive by both councillors Bailey and Davey around achieving an acceptable outcome on the HRA issues around air quality.

02:36:21I wonder if you could just walk us through, please, what the next steps are in terms of the evidence that we're going to be receiving and the questions that committee will need to be asking the options that we have. um where does that issue go um so the next stage is to get the walkover surveys um of the areas of the habitat that we've not so far been able to rule out significant effects so that one percent so we've got ecologists doing walkover surveys of those areas to understand what habitats exist in that area because as I say it being a designated habitat overall does not mean that there are particular habitats and species in those areas that would be impacted by the air quality impacts we need to understand exactly what's in those areas to understand exactly what impact would be had so that's the first thing and then depending on the outcome of that we then need to understand what mitigation would be appropriate assuming that there are protected species and important habitats in that one percent of the habitat that would be impacted by air quality

02:37:36What mitigation measures would be effective and I understand the concerns about 3.17 there is only so much we can do in terms of the reduction of vehicles and the uptake of electric vehicles paragraph 3.18 does go on to talk about other mitigation options and likely preferred choice being on-site management works that would manage the impacts in terms of inappropriate species of plant life for example growing in the habitat what can be done to change the soil conditions remove those habitats and manage the habitat appropriately to mitigate those impacts is perhaps a more likely mechanism another thing that's being discussed is is what we can do in terms of potential planting as well uh obviously um trees are known to be very good at um absorbing pollutants um and and dealing with that in a natural way so are there things we could do in terms of planting uh within grass verges for example or within uh the area to uh absorb some of those um pollutants in a natural way and and deal with that so there are mechanisms like that

02:38:51That we're exploring um were fundamentally we need to understand what habitats are impacted and how to then shape the mitigation strategy um we thought initially the mitigation would simply be you know increasing uptake of electric vehicles knowing that it's the pollutants that are rising from that but as as the report shows and and as members are picked up on that's that's very much easier said than done um so now looking at those those other measures about management of the habitat planting and natural mechanisms we can use um to mitigate the impacts so hopefully that that helps yeah thank you mr Freeman so sorry to to label the point but just to be absolutely clear um we are not relying on a hell mary of the number of journeys across these being reduced to make this problem go away that's not the case no no not at all um we're very much working with the consultants and Natural England to find appropriate mitigation measures um and work those those through and how those can be delivered

02:39:58As required thank you mr Freeman I'm going to come to Councillor Uh ledger first as I don't think he's spoken in debate yet and then I'll come back to you Councillor Jas brady not quite yeah I need are just ask one more question falling out from what mr. Freeman's just said with all the everything that's listed within the report for instance if an issue came forward with Marlcombe with the the water cycle study that would pretty much but that we couldn't mitigate against that would make the the Local Plan dead in the water if there are issues with the air quality of the pebble bird higgs for instance and that we cannot mitigate against them is that the same thing that there there is no going back there that is the the Local Plan done and we will have to restart I would say on the first point the uh wastewater from Marlcombe can definitely be mitigated is about which option is taken forward and how and when that's delivered and phasing that with development so I don't see that that's a deal breaker in terms of the plan it's about

02:41:15Working that through with southwest water but there is there is a solution there will be an engineering solution the the pebble bed heaps is is the one thing that's a real issue um in in terms of sort of deal breakers because we have to satisfy the Habitat Regulations fundamentally um as I said earlier in response to a question that the legal requirement is to have a sound HRA at the point of plan adoption it's very much best practice and in the guidance to have it at the point you submit the plan but it's not an absolute requirement so we could submit the plan in advance of resolving those issues and trust that we can work those through and resolve them in advance of the examination you know hearing sessions and and and getting into the meat of the issue bearing particularly bearing in mind that you know the inspectorate is expecting 120 plans to be submitted by the end of this year so the examination process isn't going to be quick however I don't want to rely on that I want to find the solution but until we've got these

02:42:23Walkover surveys it's very difficult to know what we're dealing with and what the solutions might be so we really need to get through the next couple of weeks and have that work and then update members in terms of the conversations we're then having with the consultants and with Natural England but the consequences of not submitting the plan before beyond the end of this year of thousands of additional homes fundamentally uh if we progress a plan under the new plan making system using the new standard method and that's only going to make the impacts on the public heaths even worse so it's not in anybody's interest for us to do that and certainly that's not what Natural England would want us to do so I would hope by working together to overcome these issues we can find a way through this um but until we've done the work I don't know what the answer is at this point but just to be clear that work relevant advice from the ecologists and the decision on how we move forwards comes back to Strategic Planning Committee

02:43:26At the next meeting once we've had the work and we will keep members briefed in the interim yes of course yeah I think the only thing that wasn't answered was if we cannot mitigate against them is that the Local Plan not able to be submitted and that's that's it I say ultimately that's for for you as members to decide whether or not we submit the plan um based on wherever we get to by the deadline um so there will be a choice to be made but I hope it's a choice you won't have to make because I hope we can resolve the issue and get to an acceptable HRA before then I think Mr. Freeman is saying that the plan can legally be submitted without a completed assessment because the requirement is that the appropriate assessment is adopted at the point of adoption of the plan but it would be a judgment call and I think the answer to is there a possibility that the issue cannot ever be mitigated and just is a brick wall that we can't get around

02:44:29And therefore the Local Plan I mean it's not living so it can't die but but can't proceed and that that is as with any Local Plan a possibility yes it's a possibility but I mean I would stress that this is about the growth in most of the district fundamentally because so many vehicles from across the district, across the Red Heaps. So, really saying the plan can't progress, we have to find a way through this, otherwise, you know, we're basically saying that Grove can't come forward in a large majority of East Devon. That's not... Thank you, from the Public Gallery.

02:45:19I have warned you so many times over so many meetings about disrupting the proceedings of this committee. If you do so again, I will ask you to leave and I will suspend the meeting if you don't.

02:45:30Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. I warned you, you've disrupted the meeting again. Could I ask you to leave the room, please? I will suspend the meeting until you do so. You were warned, you were warned again, and you've chosen to continue disrupting and being childish in this meeting.

02:45:56Thank you, [member of the public]. I'll ask you to do the same, please. Then in that case, I'm going to suspend the meeting until such a time as the members of the public have complied with the requests of the chair.

02:46:11Thank you.

03:06:41Okay, thank you, members. We will pick up where we left off, which was on Agenda Item 8. We have the recommendation as set out in the report, proposed and seconded. And I believe I was about to ask Councillor Jess Bailey to come back in, as I assume she has a point relative to what we've been going over.

03:07:00Thank you. I've just got a few questions following from the comments about the air quality and the walkover report. I'm not quite clear about the walkover report. I understand why it's being done, but there are things like the wet heath, the dry heath, the damselfly, which are kind of intrinsic features of the special area of conservation. so I don't quite know how looking at the kind of extremities or the section along the road is going to help with that.

03:07:34And we talked, Councillor Leder was talking about, you know, what happens if we can't mitigate, but what happens, could we reduce the overall numbers of housing if we find that we can't mitigate, and would that be one way round? If we aren't able to accommodate the numbers because of the impact on the air quality, will we have modelling showing, for instance, the impact of reducing numbers or removing specific sites?

03:08:05And can we show that specific sites would have a particularly detrimental impact on the air quality of their Pebblebed Heaths, particularly the ones that are closest, such as EXMO20? Are we able to get that information from the people who have done or are doing the air quality modelling? And just one final question, I think I'm right in saying, I don't sit on planning committee, but I think I'm right in saying that there's been a big planning application that's not allocated, is that right, along the somewhere in East Devon Clyst?

03:08:43And has that been taken into account in the air quality modeling given it's given it's not an allocated site thank you um thank you chair so I mean in terms of the first question in terms of the sort of benefits of the walkover surveys I mean the impact of air quality on the habitat is confined to quite a small area that's well about one percent of the habitat immediately adjacent to roads in a couple of key locations so the intention of the walk over surveys is to understand what habitats are in those specific areas the wider site is designated for various reasons as you highlighted but what we don't know is whether or not there are particularly important features of that habitat in those areas just because the whole site is designated doesn't mean those features occur in every square inch of the whole habitat so we need to understand what's exactly in those areas that would be directly impacted by air quality impacts to understand whether or not we can rule out significant effects and if not what those significant effects are what habitats

03:10:00They're impacting and then tailor the mitigation to address those impacts up to now we've just been looking at it quite strategically high level and sort of saying well it's it's air quality impacts therefore what can we do to reduce the air quality impacts and as our discussion up to now has sort of highlighted there's only so much you can do to address that in reality I think we're more looking now at the more the on-site management works that would be needed to address impacts and in order to tailor those to the harm that's being caused we need to understand what the harm is on those specific habitats so that any management techniques or works that are needed are tailored to that habitat and the impacts it's having you can't just look at it holistically when you're talking about habitats um so that would need to be tailored specifically to that so that's the purpose of the walkover surveys which would then help us to understand what mitigation is needed and tailor it to the impacts that we've identified um in terms of reducing the numbers of housing um

03:11:05Um that's a complicated one so I mean the modeling does pick up on the specific impacts of particular sites in terms of how many vehicle movements it generates over the Pebblebed Heaths so for each site we've modeled that site generates this number of vehicle movements based on uh traffic modeling flows of where vehicle movements are likely to occur as a result of that site The impacts arise across quite a large area, basically the majority of the district south of the A30, largely those to the east of the Pebble Beds because of the vehicle movements heading west along the A3052 towards Exeter.

03:11:54This is the primary impact, but also north-south from Exmouth and Bodley up to the 3052 and up towards the A30 and beyond. So the impact is not arising from any one site, it's from many, many sites, but some do impact more than others. um so that is something we could look at in terms of whether there are specific sites where if they were removed the impacts would come below the thresholds that Natural England guidance suggests is acceptable such that there isn't a significant effect um so that is something that we could look at but to do so would probably involve uh well would involve a substantial change to the plan that we can't do at this point in in plan making so in effect that's would be in relation to a different plan if we got to that point but again that's a hypothetical we need to work on the basis of trying to understand the impacts and mitigate them first and very much hope that that's something we can do thank you and just about the um the application oh yes apologies

03:13:08Um yes so we are trying to understand the impacts of developments such as the Clyst village on this uh and how that might um be considered through the application process obviously it all feeds into this wider modeling work and the survey work because if we can develop a mitigation strategy then obviously that could make developments that are coming through as planning applications such as this village acceptable in that respect if they could deliver or contribute to a mitigation strategy that we've developed but until we've understood finished the work in terms of understanding what mitigation is needed and how that could be secured we're not in a position to to say that it's acceptable in that respect so that will need to be a consideration through the planning application process but would our modeling for the Local Plan have taken that in those houses into consideration when evaluating the impact on their quality uh no because the modeling was the sites that we're allocating in the plan not the sites that we chose not to allocate um so we'd have to do further modeling specifically in terms

03:14:16Of that site to understand its impacts but ultimately the onus as things stand is on the applicant to to address that issue as it is with all other impacts arising from from their development so that's something we will need to consider when considering that application and others where the supplies we have a duty don't sorry to say this we have a duty to look at the cumulative impact on development across the district whereas the applicant for cliss valley they won't have a duty will they to look at cumulative impact they don't know necessarily what's well they probably do but they won't do that work as part of their application so does that not mean there's a gap in the evaluation of the impact of the air quality on the Pebblebed Heath because we're not doing it as part of our work they're not going to do it all so how do we know about the air quality overall um well the cliff village application you're referring to is eia development so they are required under the eia regulations as to address cumulative impacts in their

03:15:22Environmental statement yes they do have to address you they have to take into account the work the planning the development that's in our local our emerging Local Plan yes in the same ways they would do transport or anything else is it relevant to the report down I'm sensing I think once we have the walkover surveys I think we need a specific briefing for members because I'm sensing that there are a lot of outstanding questions that we need to address if they are relevant to the point we are considering today about the update report I'll take the speakers I see the government has produced its first environmental delivery plan up in Norfolk area I presume we're too small to be considered in that if we can't mitigate or is it or am I missing something is it just to do rivers or is it I've made mr. Freeman could you give us a bit more information and would it apply to us or not so assume you're referring to uh the changes in legislation that mean that

03:16:40Natural England are obliged to produce environmental delivery plans for um large-scale mitigations like that yeah um so we have had been having conversations with Natural England about all of this because obviously um they are the statutory consultees in relation to these issues and they are the experts in terms of um air quality issues on protected habitats like Pebblebed Heath which is a very specialist area uh and I did raise the issue because um linked linked to that work moving forward the idea is that Natural England produce environmental strategies to deal with these issues across the country and I did kind of cheekily sort of say how about doing one for for this um I think their intention is is is to look at air quality and protected habitats on a more strategic basis than just our specific habitat um is is the response I got so I think they are hoping that they will be looking at air quality issues but it won't be on this localized level it will be a more high level strategic approach

03:17:52Um at least in the short term so I don't think that's going to yield a solution not in the short term if it's quick council faithful yeah it's very simple we are voting on whether or not to progress this now not about what we think of the Local Plan in general or anything else it's purely about this isn't it thank you you've taken the words right out of out of my mouth council faithful we are voting to note the progress update and to continue doing the further work that Mr. Freeman has set out around further evidence gathering and understanding so that that evidence that and the advice that surrounds it can come back to this committee to inform to inform us when we consider the Local Plan at the next meeting yes so all we're doing today is saying thank you Mr. Freeman for the update keep doing the work are there any other speakers no okay in which case then the recommendation that is before us is as set out in the report and as we've just been explaining that

03:19:06Recommendation is to note the progress update and agree to continue progressing work on the three evidence elements all those in favor please those against and those abstaining one okay thank you members that is carried it is one o'clock we can either take a break we can take a break for lunch or we can plow on with the next report what would members prefer to do carry on okay in which case then we will okay all right thank you Councillor Bailey good to see you um in which case then uh mr Freeman uh an expedient presentation of agenda item nine please uh thank you chair yes so I'll be brief um this report is intending to update members on the housing supply position there are two key issues highlighted one is the housing delivery test which looks back in terms of uh basically delivery of homes against um a housing requirement figure uh and members uh sorry the government has published um the figures for effectively the last two monitoring years um and the latest figures

03:20:27Show that we've scored just below the requirement the 85 percent level so that's 85 percent delivery against the housing uh need um uh and so I think we failed that by is it 21 homes over three years I think it's very tight it's 84 is is our um our score in effect um so frustrating um but the consequence of that means that we need to produce a housing delivery action plan setting out what actions we're going to take as a council to address um the delivery and supply issues that arise from that and we have to apply a 20 buffer to our housing and supply calculations um so we get six months to produce the housing delivery action plans so I'm proposing that we we do that once we've hopefully submitted the Local Plan for the end of the year so intending to bring that to you early next year for consideration in terms of the housing supply position you've got an update in terms of the five-year housing and supply position with the 20 buffer added and this

03:21:37Also takes into account the year's data up to the 1st of April this year and that basically gives us a five-year housing land supply position of 3.16 years which is a reduction on what it previously was largely as a consequence of the 20% buffer so unfortunate that that's having to be applied but that is where we are so that means it's not called the tilted balance anymore but effectively we have to apply the tilted balance as we have been and obviously give substantial weight to housing developments that will help to address the unmet need in our decision making moving forward I think that's all I need to say at this point I'm happy to take any questions Okay, thank you, Mr. Freeman.

03:22:31Questions relevant to this report, please, members? And bearing in mind, we also had Councillor Barlow's question earlier about whether the 20% buffer that we now have to apply gets rid of the benefit of avoiding the 20% by going through under the transition arrangements. Further questions, please? Councillor Faithfull.

03:22:57Thank you, Chair. what can we do in I mean council houses if we were building our own council houses we could buff the numbers up couldn't we I don't know if we're how we can do that but um also why do we not get credit for the houses we've already done because some of it is way above the 100 percent it's the early ones it's 140 something nearly 150 percent um and which six months where did we start the six months from we got we have to deliver it in six months is it six months from now or six firms from a month ago do we know that's enough for now is it mr Freeman I think the answer to the second one is because the government says so but perhaps mr Freeman can shed some more light um not really chair um I think it's the the assessment is done over the preceding three years so anything that went before that is is gone so that yeah there were periods when we we met more than 100 percent um substantially more than 100 percent um

03:24:11But if it wasn't in the last three years that doesn't help us now basically um in terms of six months I think it's six months from when they published it um so they published it the same day that the new NPPF came out um so that was uh we got five months basically approximately so yeah we basically got five months from from now so um so yeah we've got a little bit of time um so we'll be working on that but I don't propose bringing that to you until early in the new year once we've got the Local Plan hopefully resolved also I didn't put the paragraphs that came from are the changes I don't know that one hang on I'll leave it can you not read your own handwriting council faithful it was late last night and I didn't actually give the number of the paragraph I was writing them from so now I have to decipher my own well we will leave you to do that for a moment and come back council blakey simple question for once um the total number

03:25:24Of homes delivered is that built and occupied or is it just built and available any further questions okay uh Councillor Davey uh yep we have to um produce a plan within five months as we've now established what can we realistically put in that plan how can we actually improve the housing supply position don't tell me pass more at planning because we're doing that as fast as we can we really are you may not like the answer to that question then Councillor Davey mr Freeman uh thank you chair um so uh in terms of Councillor Blakey's question so the the data the government's using is all based on data we've given them in annual returns so we try and pick up data from various different sources say from building control completions to registrations for council tax and things so it should pick up on everything that's both built and occupied because it's basically completions is the measure what can we do I've been scratching my head over that for the last couple of weeks it's challenging because

03:26:55Fundamentally I think the house building sector is actually slowing effect and because of rising costs um and we all know why that's happening it's about to get worse for house building sector because the building safety levy kicks in from october which is then an additional charge on new homes as a result of the government trying to address unsafe buildings but fundamentally so the grenfell issue then led to them collecting money through the building safety levy there's a contribution towards the dealing unsafe cladding on on buildings um so that's a charge that applies to a lot of new housing coming forward.

03:27:45I know it's only a couple of thousand, I think, per home, but it all adds up and adds to the costs. So it's a very challenging environment in terms of addressing this. As you identified, the government's expected responses for us to grant more planning permissions and get more homes built in that way, but granting permissions doesn't necessarily equal builds. um so there's an element I think of doing some work in terms of talking to some of our local builders and those that have got consent for developments that are not coming forward for whatever reason and understanding why that is and are there anything is there anything we can do to unlock those sites and help to bring them forward um and I think it's probably only through that kind of intelligence that we'll understand what's happening but um generally These sites build out relatively quickly in East Devon.

03:28:39Demand is quite high. So I can't help worrying that it's wider economic issues that play here rather than necessarily our actions, albeit I'm sure the developers will all come back and say, well, if you grant us more consent, we would build more because they want more consent. Having said that, I mean, one of the things that did come through in the data quite strongly, I think, is that we have been granting more consents for housing developments and that does show in the data it's kind of masked by the 20% buffer that we've had to apply but if it hadn't been for the 20% buffer our five year housing supply would have been healthier than it was a year ago it's that buffer that's kind of held us back I suppose. It wouldn't have been five years or anything close to but it would have been nearer four than three um so that's unfortunate that the penalty for not beating your housing supply is is the penalty in terms of more which which kind of brings me to to Councillor Barlow's point I

03:29:46Suppose about um 20 I mean the way I see it that the the it's not about increasing the total number of homes it's about what's coming forward in the next five years fundamentally so it's about trying to bring forward homes that are perhaps planned for later in the planned period and seeing how we can bring them forward earlier which is part of that conversation with developers and builders in the district where they've reported to us that they're not intending to start perhaps for another couple of years and therefore the build-outs is is much of the build-outs beyond our next five years are there things that we could do to encourage them to build bring them forward sooner um would also be part of that I think um so it's not so much about the total number it's about what's coming forward in the next five years that's the critical issue in terms of this calculation hopefully that helps thank you mr Freeman are there any other questions about this report please because faithful I found where they were um are the changes I think this is reference to

03:30:51Paragraph 2.6 or wherever they are the change from 18 hundred and eighteen percent to eighty-five percent were they connected with the government change in the I think it was the NPPF and the calculation is that what caused the change do we know can you say because and also how does how does the buffer work with 20 percent I don't know if mr friedman can answer that um so uh when you say change you

03:31:40Mean the change to the standard method and what that has yeah I think there was a change in the standard method to so we got a different set of numbers come came out wouldn't it yes so because our plan is out of date these calculations are against the standard method figure rather than the figure that's in the Local Plan so that will have had a bearing yes because the requirement figure we'd required to meet has gone up as a result of the standard method so yes that will have had an impact uh in the drop from 118 percent to 85 percent in terms of the requirement that we're being measured against it won't have affected what was being delivered but the target's gone up in effect so yes that has not helped shall we say in terms of the situation in terms of the 20% fundamentally it's it's taking 20% of the requirement figure and then yeah if you follow in the table after paragraph 3.3 uh you've got the 20 buffer added in uh so it's basically uh 20 of the housing requirement figure

03:32:59Been multiplied by five for the five years I can see the how the calculation works but how does the buffer work in reality on construction and that side of things I mean it's giving us um well it makes our five-year housing and supply position worse so it basically means we should give even more weight to um housing developments that are going to help to address the supply position um so we've seen uh government inspectors in in appeal decisions sort of use different um words to describe how acute a shortage in terms of five-year housing and supply is and that can lead to them giving more and more weight to uh the benefits of new housing in terms of addressing the housing supply position um so might describe that as um acute or severe or whatever um as a basis upon which to um to give greater weight to the benefits of new housing so it's basically if the tilted balance is a sort of seesaw it's tilted even further against us I suppose um and and in

03:34:13Favor of granting consent for more housing okay thank you members I'll move us to debate uh and for good order I'll propose the recommendations as set out in the report and look for a seconder Councillor Ledger I saw you first does anybody wish to say anything further on this one please Councillor Davey good what it's just said and and the fact that um our our average is dragged down by market conditions is it not worth making the point to government the madness of continuing with housing targets and figures like this when it's just undeliverable and it's not us and there's nothing much we can do about it apart from as Councillor Faithfull has suggested build their own houses but would it be worth at least writing to government to point out that we are in a very difficult position and it's not popular with the public and that we are struggling to fulfill targets that are completely unrealistic I'll give you an undertaking to take that one away and look at that with my portfolio holder hat on um Councillor Davey um so we will look at that one councillor

03:35:49Blake actually I'd like to support what Councillor Davey has just said because even um the minister responsible for all this who was there in the first place and said these must be built and I don't want to hear any excuses there's no soften the line to well it was only a target and you know sometimes targets get missed so even government is beginning to recognize that this is not achievable.

03:36:16And the other comment I wanted to make was actually with regard to something that Mr. Freeman said with regard to developers demanding more consents all the time. Yes, but I suspect that where we are now is that the developers are demanding consent simply so they have certainty for the future. They can develop when they're ready, but at the moment they don't wish to because the customer demand is simply not there.

03:36:43The houses are not selling at anything like the rate that they used to do. It is a depressed market, and they also don't want to develop now because they say that they are making no money. There is no margin left in developing new houses. So I think this is all indicative of fairly difficult economic times for the country as a whole, and certainly for us down here.

03:37:13It is a conspiracy of facts that make this pretty much an impossible task. So if you can reflect that in perhaps a more lucid term in the letter you're going to write, that would be good.

03:37:29Thank you. I think it is worth highlighting that there is a difference between what ministers might have said in climbing down on a manifesto commitment and the reality that is the standard method requirements. One was a political commitment that, yes, okay, they did change some of the measures set out in the MPPF to try and contribute to achieving um but but nevertheless you know regardless of what ministers have said um in terms of you know how set in stone that figure is ultimately the changes that they have made to the standard method to the housing requirement figures um calculation process remain um and the numbers that we have to hit have not changed you know they're set out in in the process is set out in statutory guidance, and until and unless ministers change that to make the requirement less onerous, you know, we're bound by those figures, whatever a government minister might say, to make their lives slightly politically easier in an interview with the press.

03:38:38You know, ultimately, policy by interview is not how the process works, unfortunately. Yeah, there we go. Councillor Faithfull. Yeah, going back to my comment earlier, I think it's probably not really this committee to be discussing it, but can we push it back to the council about council houses? Because I think we really should be doing something along those lines, and I don't think we are doing... I know we do token amounts of bits and pieces and flats and things like that, but there is government funding going out there, and I think we should be going for it.

03:39:18I think perhaps Councillor Ledger can give you a briefing on the build and buy plan that Councillor Greed some time ago now in his own time, but I think it would be fair to say we are taking action on that one within the bounds of the powers that we have. Councillor Howe, for the final word, please. Yeah, the best way I can sum this up is we sit a maths exam but then get the result for an English exam we never took.

03:39:42There is no way we can influence the rate builders build at um it is government controls that they've spoiled the building market um they've lowered uh production they've taken the builders away they've done everything they can to make it as hard as possible for us to achieve our figures and that's the issue you know we can allocate the land we can allocate as much land as they want none of us want it but nevertheless you know but if builders haven't got the builders to build you know even the major builders are struggling um it's just really hard and any protest to the government needs to be done as soon as possible but unfortunately we are where we are and if we can take the vote on this please anything further members I think we'd all echo Councillor Howe's frustration and Councillor Davey and Councillor Blakey's with that uh the recommendations are as set out in the report in front of you and is everybody clear what we are voting on yep okay can I ask then all those in favor please that is carried

03:40:54Unanimously thank you very much members we will see you in November