Agenda and minutes

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

Minute 236: Cllr P Hayward; Affects NRI as relates to employment by Axminster Town Council

Minute 236: Cllr H Parr Affects and Prejudicial NRI; Partner’s financial interests as set out on her published register of interests online.

Information on public speaking is available online

Cllr A Minter of Lympstone Parish Council gave this thanks to the local ward members for their support to the Parish.  He outlined the disappointment felt by the Parish Council on the lack of consultation on villages and Exmouth boundaries; but was heartened to see the exclusion of the remainder of GH72 as some comfort that the authority has listened to the concerns of the parish.  Additional BUAB section at Courtlands Cross was not acceptable, as the area is closer to Lympstone’s services and allows the beginning of coalescence.  The Sports ground/pitch on site would gain some support, and he suggested that a proportion of site had to keep an area for a pitch rather than later becoming housing development.  He reminded the committee of the values of Lympstone which does not want to become a tier 2 settlement, and that an increase of more than 20% was not modest development.

Cllr Roy Collins of East Devon District Council spoke of his disappointment in the committee, and their failure to protect agricultural land in the district; as well as outlining world events that were detrimental to the planet.  Food production was a key issue and agricultural land was being removed. There was no public consultation undertaken.  The authority was the only district council with no representative to the CPRE.

Mr Hunter, Solicitor, clarified legal view consideration of new sites in reg 19 sites in response to the concerns raised by Cllr Roy Collins. Mr Freeman clarified that the site referred to by Cllr Collins in Honiton (Honi18) had been included in the regulation 19 draft plan by delegated authority as agreed by the committee, subject to  a Highways agreement to the access proposed.  If that site is included, it will go out for consultation and will be brought back to the committee for debate before the plan goes to Full Council.

Cllr Jayne Blackmore from Feniton Parish Council spoke on the development hierarchy and referred to correspondence on Feniton on the issue.  The Parish had calculated that with the additional 112 dwellings proposed, the allocation was the highest of all service villages.  The proposed dwellings were also more than three other tier 3 centres which have better access to facilities.  The Parish did not feel this was moderate growth for a village with known flooding and infrastructure issues.  The disused nursery site in the village could be used over the plan period but the overall plan set out for the committee to consider was too large.  She asked for the rejection of site Feni08, as it had previously been rejected by a Planning Inspector on a past planning application. The site was not sustainable for a small village with poor transport links. The Parish also strongly objected to site Otry 20 as the access was not suitable due to narrow lane, bridges and no footpath.

A statement was read out on behalf of Cllr Charlotte Fitzgerald, who was unable to attend the meeting in person. The statement related to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 233.

Information on matters of urgency is available online

None.

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

None.

This report summarises the considerations that have been taken into account in the definition of settlement boundaries.

There are two main policies relating to settlement boundaries in Chapter 3 of the draft plan: ‘Development inside settlement boundaries’ (SP 05) and ‘Development beyond settlement boundaries’ (SP 06). At the Strategic Planning Committee meeting on 5 November 2024, it was agreed to include these policies with this report on the proposed settlement boundaries so that the policies and the boundaries could be considered together.

An evidence paper had been produced to set out how the boundaries have been drawn for individual settlements and why any changes have been made. The paper set out the general principles that have guided the process. These covered that all site allocations are included in the settlement boundary and that, generally, predominantly open land in a green wedge or the coastal preservation area has been excluded to avoid policy conflicts. Constraints such as flooding or heritage impacts have not usually been taken into account because the aim is to set out areas that are broadly acceptable for development, recognising that further details will be addressed through the development management system. An exception to this is the village of Stoke Canon, where the whole built-up area is at risk of flooding, and no settlement boundary is proposed.

The bulk of the evidence paper comprised a settlement by settlement analysis, with a map showing any existing and the proposed settlement boundaries, a summary of representations received, and any changes highlighted.

A statement from Broadhembury Parish Council was read out in part (the full statement having been previously circulated to the committee):

‘Settlement boundaries’ or Built-up Area Boundaries (BUAB) define boundaries around settlements within which different Planning policies apply. Within the boundary development is more likely to be acceptable than outside the boundary.  In the case of Broadhembury village the land outside the proposed boundary is classed as ‘open countryside’ where there is a presumption against building, except in certain circumstances. Until 2016, when the BUAB was removed it consisted of two sections split by a gap at the flood plain of the River Tale. The two portions on the Southern edge were within the boundary of the AONB (now the National Landscape).  The proposed settlement boundary has joined the previously separate sections by including the flood plain within the boundary and by enlarging the area in accordance with criteria B1 and B2. Recent flooding of the River Tale at this point makes any development unrealistic. Whilst criterion B2 clearly refers to Broadhembury Memorial Hall which has existed since 1923 we can see no further rational for B2 and must therefore assume that enlargement is based on criterion B1. We are not aware of specific applications which would qualify for B1 enlargement.  General criterion A1 (boundaries should reflect existing scale and core build) cannot be used to justify the East and West ends of the BUAB because neither end reflects the scale and core build of the village. Similarly criterion A2 (boundaries should follow clearly defined physical features…etc) does not justify the extension of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 236.

This report sets a first proposed redraft of Chapter 6 – Strategy for development at Principal Centres, Main Centres, Local Centres and Services Villages of the Local Plan.

Chapter 6 is a reworking of the equivalent chapter in the draft local plan and includes all of the sites that have been determined for allocation in previous committee meetings and excludes all of the sites that the committee rejected.

In the redrafting process, review has been undertaken to consider particular challenges, constraints or opportunities and drafted policy to reflect on and respond to these.  This means that some allocations had limited wording, specifically so where development would appear relatively straightforward, bearing in mind that we would seek compliance with all relevant policies in the plan elsewhere, as a norm. However, where there were site specific matters that need particular attention on any given allocation site, explicit requirements for development in plan policy were set out in the report.

These include, on larger and more complex sites, the need for comprehensive

Masterplans to be produced to lead and guide the development of the site.

Members were reminded that Neighbourhood Plans will continue to be examined for general conformity with the adopted Local Plan (2031), with some (increasing) consideration given to the relationship with the emerging Local Plan, until such time as the new Local Plan is at least at Main Modifications stage.

Discussion included:

·       Request for Brcl_29 allocation vehicle access route clarity; following lengthy discussion a proposal was put forward for a joint allocation of Brcl_29 and Brcl_12 with a masterplan with access to be determined;

·       Mitigation areas need to be separately identified on the allocation maps to avoid any misinterpretation;

·       GH/ED/27 improved pedestrian access along strawberry lane request; it was confirmed that the wording in the plan set out a delivery of safe access without being prescriptive about how this is delivered;

·       Colour coding to make clear that a site may not be solely for housing to be clarified;

·       Request for Axmi_02, Axmi_08 and Axmi_09 or GHED80 incorporate for future masterplanning please include burial ground – in response, this will need more work from officers to examine evidence to support and what can reasonably be required from a development, alongside the infrastructure delivery plan

·       GH/ED/80 site road future extension wording clarification; will clarify in wording to be related to the relief road;

A reminder that the Regulation 19 draft of the plan will be on agenda for 11 December 2024.

Recommendation:

1.     that mitigation areas need to be separately identified on the allocation maps to avoid any misinterpretation;

2.     that Brcl_29 and Brcl_12 are put forward as a joint allocation with the requirement of a masterplan, with access to the joint site to be determined;

3.     that committee endorse the proposed draft revised - Chapter 6. Strategy for development at the Principal Centre of Exmouth, Main Centres, Local Centres and Service Villages - of the local plan noting that they will need to be refined in readiness for the proposed Regulation 19 draft of the plan, subject to any further minor issues put forward directly to the Assistant Director to confer with the Chair under delegated authority to assess  ...  view the full minutes text for item 237.

The report set out that Local plans need to be supported by viability assessment to show that the policies within can be implemented in a financially sound and robust manner. It needed to be demonstrated that in typical cases the costs that would fall to a development scheme can be borne by the financial returns the developer can be expected to secure.

Following assessment by commissioned consultants, findings show that in higher value housing areas a 35% affordable housing percentage figure could typically be sustained, but this figure would be lower in other parts of the district. At Cranbrook there is existing policy that sets out percentage levels which are comparatively low, but this reflects the broader financial costs of building at the new town. The same considerations may well apply at the second new town, but it will be subject to separate bespoke modelling work.

Discussion by the committee included:

·       Clarity on rural classification – groupings have come from consultants linking those area with similar viability and cost profile.

·       Concern 35% level for windfall sites; in response it was reiterated that there was not sufficient evidence to maintain the current 50% outside settlement boundaries – evidence shows the level is at 35%;

·       Affordability issue also set out in housing chapters elsewhere in the plan.

·       Higher density where we can (eg. flats) but showing in report evidence that flat developments aren’t viable. Should the committee be trying to increase the density in some areas? In response, higher density living impacted by nature of market demand, as evidence predominantly is for the need for 3 to 4 bedroom homes.  This issue on high density living needs to be revisited for the new community in order to create an environment that is attractive to people and the market to deliver flats. This will fall to the masterplanning exercise.

·       Increased focus on social rent is a positive element but there was concern for the 35%.

RESOLVED:

That Strategic Planning Committee note the viability assessment work that has been undertaken and endorse the headline findings for inclusion in local plan policy.

The Chair adjourned the meeting as a number of Members needed to leave and so the meeting would no longer be quorate and agreed to reconvene on Friday 29 November 2024 at 10am to consider the remaining items.

</AI8>

<TRAILER_SECTION>