Agenda and minutes

Information on public speaking is available online

Councillor Alasdair Bruce read out the following statement on behalf of Feniton Parish Council in relation to Minute 87 Working draft of the proposed East Devon Local Plan 2020 to 2040:

You will today be considering a strategy for the distribution of new development in the draft local plan.  Most importantly for local communities, you will be identifying the specific sites where it is proposed development should be located. I am aware that the initial draft of the local plan does not meet the government’s housing target for East Devon by some 900 houses and that the committee faces a potentially difficult task in bridging the gap.

I have noted that among the potential options to achieve this, the village of Feniton is identified in at least two. This seems to be partly because the “call for sites” produced a number of superficially suitable sites and partly because of its identification as a larger “Service Village”.

I would like to remind the Committee that four of the sites at Feniton have already been tested at the consolidated Planning Inquiry of 2014 when all but the smallest site were rejected.  The Planning Inspector concluded unequivocally that Feniton is not a sustainable location for new large scale housing.

The developers of these sites and the new sites now proposed at Feniton cannot claim with any authority or credibility that Feniton has become a more sustainable place for large scale housing.  Indeed, I and the Parish Council would contend that if anything the situation is now worse.

Relative to the population the number of jobs easily accessible to the village is tiny.  As a consequence the working population has to drive to its employment and car ownership in the village is way above the national average.  While it is tempting to conclude that the presence of a railway station in the village makes it suitable as a commuter village for Exeter or Honiton, the reality is that trains only stop every two hours.  The prospect of providing a service in the peak period that is sufficiently frequent to attract commuters from their cars is zero.  The single track line will not allow it.  Bus services are equally uninviting or inconvenient.

The Primary School is at capacity and on a constrained site.  Consequently, the parents of new families coming to the village are already often required to transport their children to other villages by car.  None of these parents is then going to return, park up and seek public transport to get to their jobs.

The village shop provides a good service but very few could rely on it for their total weekly shop.  Most travel by car to supermarkets in nearby towns.  While the draft plan identifies Feniton as a “Service Village”, leisure facilities and other services in the village are limited, there is no doctor, so again more car journeys are needed to meet the needs of the village population.

So, typical of many East Devon villages, the pattern in Feniton is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Minutes of the meetings held on 25 January, 26 January 2022 and 8 February 2022.

Members were happy to accept the minutes of the consultative Strategic Planning Committee meetings held on 25 and 26 January and 8 February 2022.

Guidance is available online to Councillors and co-opted members on making declarations of interest

Minute 81. Housing monitoring update to year ending 31 March 2021.

Councillor Jess Bailey, Personal, Devon County Councillor for Otter Valley.

Minute 81. Housing monitoring update to year ending 31 March 2021.

Councillor Paul Hayward, Personal, Employed as Clerk to All Saints and Chardstock Parish Councils and locum Deputy Clerk to Axminster Town Council.

Minute 82. Further engagement with developers and site promoters to inform Local Plan production.

Councillor Jess Bailey, Personal, Devon County Councillor for Otter Valley.

Minute 83. Local Plan revised plan making timetable.

Councillor Jess Bailey, Personal, Devon County Councillor for Otter Valley.

Minute 83. Local Plan revised plan making timetable.

Councillor Paul Hayward, Personal, Employed as Clerk to All Saints and Chardstock Parish Councils and locum Deputy Clerk to Axminster Town Council.

Minute 84. First Homes - interim guidance note.

Councillor Jess Bailey, Personal, Devon County Councillor for Otter Valley.

Minute 85. Torbay Local Plan Housing update Growth Options Consultation.

Councillor Jess Bailey, Personal, Devon County Councillor for Otter Valley.

Minute 86. Self-build monitoring report.

Councillor Jess Bailey, Personal, Devon County Councillor for Otter Valley.

Minute 87. Working draft of the proposed East Devon Local Plan 2020 to 2040.

Councillor Dan Ledger, Personal, Chair of Exeter & East Devon Enterprise Board.

Minute 87. Working draft of the proposed East Devon Local Plan 2020 to 2040.

Councillor Eleanor Rylance, Personal, Broadclyst Parish Councillor and a resident of Broadclyst.

Minute 87. Working draft of the proposed East Devon Local Plan 2020 to 2040.

Councillor Jess Bailey, Personal, Devon County Councillor for Otter Valley.

Minute 87. Working draft of the proposed East Devon Local Plan 2020 to 2040.

Councillor Kevin Blakey, Personal, Cranbrook Town Councillor.

Minute 87. Working draft of the proposed East Devon Local Plan 2020 to 2040.

Councillor Mike Howe, Personal, Bishops Clyst Parish Councillor and owner of a convenience store in Clyst St Mary which is in my ward as a district councillor.

Minute 87. Working draft of the proposed East Devon Local Plan 2020 to 2040.

Councillor Paul Hayward, Personal, Director of Exeter Science Park and employed as Clerk to All Saints and Chardstock Parish Councils and locum Deputy Clerk to Axminster Town Council.

Minute 87. Working draft of the proposed East Devon Local Plan 2020 to 2040.

Councillor Philip Skinner, Personal, Known to FWS Carter & Sons and the Stewart family;  Owns land in Talaton that is in the HELAA process which is not detailed in any documentation being discussed and a previous Member of the Science Park Board.

Minute 86. Working draft of the proposed East Devon Local Plan 2020 to 2040.

Councillor Sarah Chamberlain, Personal, Broadclyst Town Councillor and Broadclyst Ward Member.

Information on matters of urgency is available online

There were no matters of urgency.

To agree any items to be dealt with after the public (including the Press) have been excluded. Thereare no itemswhich officersrecommendshould be dealtwithin thisway.

There were no confidential / exempt items.

This report provides a summary of house building monitoring information to the year ending 31 March 2021.

The Committee considered the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management’s report outlining the latest robust monitoring figures on housing supply and monitoring to year ending 31 March 2021. 

Members noted that houses delivered was down on preceding years due to the pandemic, seeing 872 completed.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that although this figure was below the 918 Government standard method the overall shortfall was just two houses after taking into account over-supply in some of the previous year’s which demonstrated a five year housing land supply position.  However, the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management raised concerns that this was in a declining position and drew Members attention to paragraph 5 about future risks highlighting there was a need for immediate action and that Members needed to accept that the Local Plan was unlikely to be adopted before 2024.

Points raised during discussion included:

·         Reference was made to the table in paragraph 3.2 which should read (Number = A x 5) and (Number A x 8) as this was the annual requirement;

·         Concerns raised that the wording in paragraph 5.2 could imply that developers could come forward with pre-emptive sites. In response the Chair advised that any sites that came forward would go through the Planning Committee and it was the Committee’s responsibility to determine applications that were not in line with current policy.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management acknowledged the concerns raised about pre-empting but emphasised the need to maintain the five year land supply.  In response to a question he advised that he hoped to bring a report on the HELAA to the meeting in April;

·         Reference was made to the removal of the Axminster Urban Extension detailed in paragraph 5 – future risks and questioned the suggestion that it had been removed because it was undeliverable.  The Chair advised that the urban extension was removed as officers felt it was not able to deliver housing within the next five years and also addressed the phosphates issues in the River Axe.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy confirmed that evidence suggested this was the case but the urban extension could be revisited at a later date.  He acknowledged there could be phosphate issues in many rivers in the district but highlighted that the River Axe was a priority as it was a European Designated Habitat.

The Chair proposed an additional recommendation that a short briefing session with Strategic Planning Committee and Planning Committee from planners about how to boost the housing supply outside of the emerging Local Plan.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management confirmed he was happy to arrange if Members agreed

The Strategic Planning Committee noted:

1.    The residential dwellings completion data and future projections for the district including the comments on future supply risks detailed in section 5 of the report;

2.    The confirmation of a Five Year Land Supply;

3.      That the Housing Monitoring update will be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

This report seeks Members view on how to handle the remaining requests and whether additional committee time should be set aside to hear the remaining presentations.

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management sought Members’ views about whether they would like wider engagement with developers and site promoters following the 33 site presentations held on 25 and 26 January 2022.  Interest to present to Members had been received on a further 27 sites that had either scored low or high in Officer’s initial assessment while there was also a small number of other parties that had missed the registration deadline.

Comments received from Committee Members included:

·         Support for options 1 & 2 and welcomed more time to hear from other developers;

·         Support for option 3 as none of the information provided by developers would be binding. 

·         It would be helpful to hear about the proposed new community but the suggestion of more long days listening to presentations would not be welcomed;

·         If we are to understand the opportunities for the district we must listen to more presentations;

·         It is important to be democratic and transparent;

·         Support for option 2 to set aside time at a later stage of plan production which would give more time to understand the policies

The Chair proposed option 2 together with the recommendations as written in the report.  He further proposed to not accept sites that are not major applications of less than 10 houses.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.    For Senior Officers to promote option 2 in response to the remaining requests for presentations to Strategic Planning Committee and specifically whether more time to set aside to have presentations from developers and site promotors and, if so, when and how the meetings should be arranged;

2.      To Senior Officers that Officers to able to meet with developers and site promotors where this is necessary to gain further information and evidence on a site to inform assessment work provided such meetings are minuted.

This report seeks to provide Members with an update on the timetable for production of the new Local Plan.

The Committee considered the report which updated Members on the timetable for production of the new Local Plan noting that progress had been slower than initially envisaged due to resourcing issues and Members consideration of the working draft Local Plan taking longer than envisaged in the original work programme.  The expectation was for consultation on a draft Local Plan to be in September/October 2022.

Discussions on the report included:

·         Clarification was sought about the further call for sites which Members supported at the last meeting as a search for sites underpins the whole Local Plan.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management referred to paragraph 2.4 and welcomed Members view about whether they were happy to wait to run the call for sites alongside the consultation on the draft Local Plan.  He advised a further report for a call for sites outlining the options and practicalities would hopefully be brought to Committee in March;

·         Clarification sought on surface water and river flooding implications as the Environment Agency were not updating their information until autumn which could impact on planning processes.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that the flooding maps and infrastructure assessments were ongoing and Officers were gathering evidence to form assessments of the sites which would be brought to Members when it became available

·         Concerns raised about the resource implications and whether there would be capacity to undertake a further call for sites.

·         It is essential that all town and parish councils be included in the call for sites to find out whether they were aware of any plots of land that could be developed or to find out their aspirations for their town or village.  The Chair was hesitant about this and suggested that councils could put forward sites without the landowner’s knowledge when we need a willing land owner to allocate the site.

That Strategic Planning Committee note the proposed amendment to the local plan making timetable (consultation proposed to now be in autumn 2022)

RECOMMENDATION:

Of agreement that a new Local Development Scheme, with a detailed plan timetable, will be brought to Committee in spring 2022 and that a further report on practicalities for a further call for sites be presented.

DECISION:

The recommendation was approved by a Senior Officer.  The Senior Officer Decision Notice is listed above under Additional Documents.

This report seeks Members approval of the draft interim guidance note: East Devon – First Homes.

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management presented the report that sought Members approval of the draft Interim Guidance Note: East Devon – First Homes introduced by Government for first time buyers with a household income of less than £80,000 per year.

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management drew Members attention to the various options within the report and advised if Members were minded not to pursue the preferred options that delegated powers to amend the guidance notes would be needed to be sought to ensure its accuracy.

Discussions covered:

·         As a lot of developers challenge rural exception sites so there is a need to make policies robust and unchallengeable;  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management confirmed the policy on rural exception sites was robust and there were no issues to date

·         Reference was made to paragraph 1.3 and whether there were sufficient applicants to take up the offer of at least 25% affordable units as first homes.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development advised 25% was a Government requirement and advised he was happy to look into this but there was an assumption that this would be an attractive offer for those struggling to get onto the property ladder

·         There is a need to provide first homes in areas where there is growing economy;

·         It was questioned how to make developers make deliverable houses.  In response the Planning Barrister advised that Homes England had set up templates and guidance notes in relation to this.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management reassured Members that the Council was working on the processes for supporting this when the NPPF brings out the guidance and the framework for first homes.  He also advised about other local councils were participating in drafting legal agreements and monitoring;

·         It was questioned whether there were any comparisons to determine how this would fit within East Devon.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised all councils were in similar positions as this was a new type of affordable housing ownership product for first-time buyers and time will tell on how it would work.

·         Issues about cost recovery and whether councils would be able to enter into a fee agreement;

·         Reference was made to paragraph 3.7 and the balance between affordable housing delivery and its impact on Strategy 24 of the Local Plan.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that guidance would be developed over time and would be incorporated into the new Local Plan

ROMMENDATION:

1.    Of approval of the draft Interim Guidance Note: East Devon – First Homes;

2.    Of agreement to delegate authority to the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management in consultant with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning to make any minor changes to finalise the Interim Guidance Note and to publish that document on the Council’s website.

3.    Of agreement to delegate authority to the Service Lead – Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

This report summarises the current Torbay Local Plan Housing update Growth Options Consultation and provides a proposed response from this Council.

The report presented to Committee summarised the current Torbay Local Housing Update Growth Options Consultation for meeting Torbay’s housing requirements up to 2030.

The Service Lead - Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that Torbay Council was struggling to meet their housing need and referred Members to paragraph 1.2 which detailed Torbay’s consultation documents and the following list of proposed options to help meet the Government’s housing figure of 596 houses per year:

Option 1 – No further greenfield allocations beyond already allocated or approved sites.

Option 2 – Limited further greenfield development

Option 3 – One or two further urban extensions.

Option 4  - All sites that have not been ruled out in principle

Option 5 – Meeting full needs (as required by Government)

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that as it was unlikely Torbay Council would meet their housing need he sought Members views on the council’s response on page 139 highlighting that East Devon District Council had the same landscape and environmental constraints.  The response also highlights the impact on peoples’ home lives and climate change if new homes to meet Torbay’s needs are delivered in East Devon when residents lives are fundamentally based in Torbay.

Comments received from Members included:

·         This is an excellent and diplomatic response;

·         It does not make sense for Torbay Council to outsource housing to more than 20 miles away;

·         There is a need to follow our own advice and not take the easy option to develop on greenfield sites.

RECOMMENDATION:

Of endorsement of the proposed response in this report and delegate authority to the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management to submit comments accordingly

DECISION:

The recommendation was approved by a Senior Officer.  The Senior Officer Decision Notice is listed above under Additional Documents.

This report provides a summary of a new self-build monitoring report covering the period 30 October 2020 to 31 October 2021.

The Committee considered the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management’s report on demand for plots from the period 30 October 2020 to 31 October 2021.  The period saw a continued demand with an overall 44 individuals added to the register with 26 plots consented between 31 October 2021 and 30 October 2024 highlighting there was a need to permission service plots to meet that demand.

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management referred to the appendix to the report outlining information about budgets which suggested the majority of builders were looking to build larger properties rather than affordable housing projects and suggested this may change in the future when plots come forward through policy requirements in the Cranbrook DPD as well as the self-build policies in the Local Plan.

The Committee were supportive of the self-build monitoring report and questions raised during discussion were:

·         Clarification sought from the Council’s policy perspective about how would self-builds fit within development schemes;

·         Clarification sought about what was the floor area space on the self-build policy;

·         It was suggested that people who want to build £1m houses must contribute to the local budget to help deliver extra services;  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management acknowledged the frustration felt and advised that all self-builds were exempt from contributing to Community Infrastructure Levy

·         Need to avoid self-build homes being sold on by someone who builds houses for a living.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised there was a requirement to live in self-builds for a minimum of three years (to be exempt from CIL) which the council enforce rigidly

·         There is a need to make it work for all levels of income;

·         There is a need to encourage and provide opportunities to people wanting to build their own homes;

·         Would like to see service plots throughout the district and not just Cranbrook focussed;

·         We urgently need serviced plots to introduce diversity in house designs;

·         Would like to see a requirement on developers all over the district to provide serviced plots for the younger people who otherwise do not have the opportunity to get themselves on the property ladder;

·         Suggestion to revisit the budget requirement for the council to look into acquiring self-build plots. 

In response to the questions raised the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management acknowledged there was a need to review the council’s approach to self-build and custom build homes to help identify suitable sites to bring forward and purchase but at present the land coming forward has been quite limited over the last couple of years.  He referred to Policy 41 in the new Local Plan that requires 5% of dwellings on sites of 20 homes or more to be custom or self-build plots as well as different vehicles for delivering these.  He suggested the need to investigate further to reduce some of the red tape during the planning process such as a plot passport to remove the need for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Chapter 5 – Future growth and development on the development on the western side of East Devon

10. Strategic Policy – Exeter Science Park

·         Do not support option B as would like to see the Science Park expanded

·         Well sought after area;

·         Support for option A

·         There is a need to read option C carefully and have it on the back burner;

·         The Science Park not only delivers jobs but it delivers a very high tech of jobs and skills we do not see in the normal walk of life with connections between Exeter City Council and Exeter University.

·         In response to discussions the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised the Science Park wanted to have land to expand into and were in discussions about what land is available.  Preference would be to have land as near to the existing Science Park to benefit from infrastructure and existing facilities but if this was not possible an expansion on land to the south of the A30 would be an option;

·         Caution raised for option C as this would be part of the Clyst Valley Regional Park and the need to consider wildlife;

·         Would like expansion to take place north of the A30 that abuts the Science Park

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

The proposal is for land to be allocated for Science Park expansion.  Policy will explain and expand on:

·         The types of uses that will be allowed;

·         Any relevant phasing policies;

·         Particular design standards and approaches that might be applicable.

11. Strategic Policy – High quality employment north of Sowton Village

·         Support for option B as this is a very sensitive area and right against the A30 and M5 with limited land for development without encroaching onto Sowton Village Conservation Area where there are a multitude of listed buildings.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that evidence was being gathered and referred to an updated economic development needs assessment for site assessment work for this particular area.  Preserving the historic village of Sowton can be achieved provided there was adequate landscape separation

·         Support for option A as it is adjacent to the M5 and A30 and in close proximity to the Science Park with an opportunity for housing growth;

·         Concerns raised that this would be more Greenfield development.  Not supportive of this because we need a hierarchy to develop on what has already been built on.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management agreed that brownfield land should be used first but there is none.

·         Need to consider the flooding implications of the Culm Valley

Members advised that they support officers preferred option:

The proposal is for land to be allocated for a high quality business park to the north of Sowton village.  Policy will explain and expand on matters to include:

·         The types of uses that will be allowed;

·         Any relevant phasing policies;

·         Particular design standards and approaches that might be applicable;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.