Agenda and draft minutes

The minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee meeting held on 2 April 2024 were confirmed as a true record.

The Chair advised that following the resolution from Full Council on 17 April 2024 to amend the Strategic Planning Committee minutes from the meeting on 5 March 2024, the address description for site Brcl_31 – land at Mosshayne Lane, Pinhoe will now be shown as Mosshayne Lane, Broadclyst for Minute 75 – Consultation on Housing Sites.

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

Minute 99. Green Wedge Boundaries in the new Local Plan.

The Chair, on behalf of Committee Members advised about receiving a lobbying email from PCL Planning Ltd, in respect of the emerging East Devon Local Plan – Green Wedge.

Non-Committee Member

Minute 100. Clyst Valley Regional Park Local Plan Consultation Paper.

Councillor Peter Faithfull, Affects Non-registerable Interest, Known to a landowner within the Clyst Valley Regional Park boundary.

Information on public speaking is available online

There were no speakers.

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 or exempt items.

This report advises of the proposed upcoming and additional East Devon Local Plan consultation under Regulation 18 of the plan making regulations.  It also provides a more general update on local plan work.

The report presented to the committee provided an update on the additional East Devon Local Plan consultation under Regulation 18 of the plan making regulations which would include the following subject matters for consideration:

Ø  Designated Neighbourhood Area housing requirements

Ø  Potential additional housing allocations sites

Ø  Town centre retail boundaries

Ø  Proposed employment sites for allocation

Ø  Coastal Preservation Areas

The consultation would be undertaken online through the Commonplace software and would commence on or before Friday, 3 May 2024 for six weeks closing on Monday, 17 June 2024.

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management did not provide an update on the Local Plan making timetable as Members felt, through discussion at the Local Plan Members Working Group, they wanted to see the site allocations brought forward to the summer and therefore there was a need to reconsider the timetable for the production of the plan.  The updated timetable would now be brought back to the next committee meeting in May.

Discussions covered:

·       Queried whether the National Landscape boundaries would be included in the map to help understand any overlapping.  As National Landscape boundaries were set by government and Natural England there was no need to consult on these.

·       Queried whether the Green Wedges and Coastal Preservation Area boundaries would be overlapped for clarity.  These will both be shown together.

·       Update requested on the Water Cycle Study.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management acknowledged Members frustration and that he had been chasing this on a daily basis and was confident that Members would have it soon.

·       Clarification was sought on the receipt of a report to address the resource implications for the Energy Policy that Members had supported.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that discussions had taken place and a report would be brought to committee soon.

·       Queried whether the housing allocation for 1,000 homes at Mosshayne Lane, Broadclyst was in excess of the housing number that had been previously consulted on.  Although the housing allocation was not in addition to the housing numbers it did allow some breathing room when considering site allocations.

·       A concern was raised that Members had still not commented on some items from the last consultation that ended in January 2023.  It had been envisaged that Members would consider this chapter by chapter but this has been superseded by the Regulation 18 consultation and the site allocations that have now been brought forward.

·       Queried whether the quality of the map in the Regulation 18 consultation would be interactive so that the public could look at the Green Wedge boundaries in detail.  It was acknowledged there had been issues with the previous consultation and Commonplace and that other routes were being considered to make the maps easier to use but at this stage due to time constraints pdf maps would be used.

·       Clarification was sought on the aim of the consultation.  The aim was to understand whether it was appropriate for housing sites and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

This report follows on from the workshop and sets out in detail a potential option for consultation on Green Wedges.

The Committee considered the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management’s report which sought agreement to the boundary formatting of Green Wedges for consultation in the new Local Plan.  This followed on from the Members Workshop where Members wished to retain the existing Green Wedges as much as possible.

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management highlighted some risks associated with this proposed approach and Members noted that the policy wording would need to closely reflect the wording in the existing Local Plan as the extent of the Green Wedges and the evidence available would not justify the policy definition as previously proposed.

Members noted a minor boundary change due to an historic drafting anomaly detailed in the map (figure 1) at paragraph 5.2 that showed a correction on land between Poltimore and Westclyst.

There was also a number of development areas for exclusion where significant development had come forward that were within the Green Wedges detailed in the maps at paragraph 5.3 from Figure 2 to Figure 7.  It was now proposed to consult on the Green Wedge boundaries but to show the potential development allocations on the maps.  These affected sites equate to approximately 1,000 homes.

Discussions covered:

Ø  Queried why a piece of parkland south of the old A30 was excluded from the Green Wedge.  This piece of land is within the flood zone and would be protected from development.

Ø  It was suggested that Gittisham should be protected from the encroachment from Honiton.

Ø  A concern was raised about some of the proposed developments within Green Wedges and whether the Inspector would find the Local Plan unsound at the examination stage.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management acknowledged this concern and advised there were risks and that the council would need to defend its position if it was challenged.   

Ø  What weight should be given to the complaints by developers to not stand in the way of development.  There is pressure from developers to release land for development and to meet housing needs will be a challenge.

RESOLVED:

That the proposed policy wording be agreed and the boundaries in relation to Green Wedges in the new Local Plan be consulted on.

This report sets out background information on the Clyst Valley Regional Park and it recommends local plan public consultation on the proposed extension of the park to encompass a greater area of land in the western edges of East Devon.

The report sought Members endorsement to the proposed amendments to the existing Clyst Valley Regional Park boundary as set out on the map in Figure 2 on page 54 and also included some areas that were proposed to exclude where some small development had taken place.

Members noted that although the Clyst Valley Regional Park would run through the proposal for the second new community, it had had been ‘greyed out’.  It was felt at this stage it was seen as premature to identify routes and that it would be done through the master planning work of the new community.

The Portfolio Holder, Coast, Country and Environment, Councillor Geoff Jung said he was a great supporter of the Clyst Valley Regional Park and asked Committee Members to support the endorsement of the proposed changes as it would help to protect and improve the access to the countryside.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the proposed changes to the existing Clyst Valley Regional Park boundary and the proposed expansion of the park in line with the assessment methodology attached as Appendix 1 to this report be endorsed.

2.     That the public consultation, in the form of Appendix 2 attached to this report, be agreed and be undertaken on the proposed Clyst Valley Regional Park boundary.

This report highlights elements of the SFRA Level 1 that are considered to be most relevant to plan making.

The report presented to committee provided details of a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) evidence document to demonstrate the relationship between development coming forward and the risks of flooding in the district that the Council was required to complete to support the production of the Local Plan.

The executive summary for the SFRA level 1 appended to the report provided the main sources of flooding in East Devon which included, water courses, surface water, sewers and the sea.  Members noted that the most recorded incidents were due to fluvial flooding and surface water flooding as well as tidal flooding along the coast.

The level 2 SFRA looks specifically at particular sites where housing allocations could possibly take place where there are flood issues.  This evidence will allow Members to make an informed decision as to whether or not these sites should be allocated.  Level 2 has commenced this month and will take 4 – 5 months to complete.

Discussions covered:

·       The Honiton Flood Scheme needs to be acknowledged in the appendix.

·       It was queried why Sid_6a was not being assessed in Level 2 SFRA as the road floods regularly in that area and its also in a flood zone area.

·       Clarification was sought on the timescale for the Level 2 SFRA.  It would need to be completed before the finalisation of the allocations and before it goes out for consultation at the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.

·       How many sites were not looked at because of the cost?

·       Sowt_09 has not been listed in the sites being assessed. Although the site is not in the flood zone the access is.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised he would take this away with regards to Sowt_09 and Sid_06a to fully understand the implications and if necessary broaden out the scope provided it is covered within the budget.

·       It is difficult to understand the map of accumulative impact detailed in appendix 3 – could this be made easier to understand?

·       The Water Cycle Report could actually make some of these sites undeliverable.

·       Note of correction to the wording on page 77 paragraph 3.6 to read Millwey Rise and not Millway Rise.

RESOLVED:

1.     To note the Level 1 SFRA and to endorse it as evidence to underpin flooding issues for the emerging Local Plan.

2.     To agree that the SFRA should be used in the formulation of policies to be included in the Local Plan relating to flood risk.

3.     That the need to consider the results of ongoing work on a Level 2 SFRA before local plan allocations are finalised be noted.

This report notes the legal changes, sets out the challenges of meeting future monitoring requirements and highlights the need to increase opportunities.

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management presented an annual report that summarised the self-build and custom housebuilding in the district undertaken for October 2022 to October 2023.

Members noted that the overall demand for plots was a total of 13 individuals that had been added to the self-build register.  This created a need to commission 11 suitable plots between October 2023 to October 2026 to meet the level of demand and a further 3 plots to meet the residual requirement from the previous year.

Key points to note included changes in the legislation and policy about how self-build and custom housebuilding would be considered.  Historically it had been based on counting permissions to meet the need but this was no longer an appropriate approach and it now puts onus on the council to be more explicit when granting consent.  This could mean that more applications could come forward beyond settlement boundaries or in locations expressly to provide self and custom build housing and the need for such plots would have to be given significant weight. 

Discussions covered:

·       Are the public aware of this opportunity and do we advertise this?  The council’s approach has been to stand back and let it happen as its complicated to promote as there are different types of self-build and custom homes such as affordable or grand designs.  Finding suitable land is also a factor and these types of opportunities are rare as land is in high demand and at a premium.

·       There is a need for more houses in our villages, we must allow small expansions.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the legislative and national policy changes described in the report be noted and consideration be given to including a planning policy in the emerging Local Plan that will enable greater levels of self-build and custom housebuilding being delivered through small and medium sized sites.

2.     That the draft monitoring report for use in planning decisions (to inform both local plan production and decision making on development proposals) be endorsed.

3.     To note that 13 individuals were added to the self-build register during the latest monitoring period (31/10/22 – 20/10/2023).

4.     That the need to permission 11 plots suitable for self-build between 31/10/2023 and 30/10/2026 be noted to meet the demand shown on Part 1 of the self-build register (between 31/10/2022 and 30/10/2023).

5.     To permission a further 3 plots suitable for self-build between 31/10/2023 and 30/10/2025 to meet the ‘residual’ requirement from the demand shown on the register for 31/10/2021 to 30/10/2022.

6.     To note that the demand for self-build plots indicated on the register should be taken into account in our planning, housing, regeneration and estate functions.

7.     To invite the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management to prepare a further report on self-build and custom housebuilding options to bring back to committee when resources are available to do so.