Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Knowle, Sidmouth

Contact: Wendy Harris 

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Public speaking

Information on public speaking is available online.

 

 

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed everyone present to the meeting.

 

Cllr Ray Bloxham, Cranbrook Town Councillor and Devon County Councillor, outlined to the committee three areas of concern. Firstly, relating to the Cranbrook Development Plan Document process and whilst the Cranbrook DPD does not design the town centre the expansion areas of Cranbrook can offer funding opportunities for key infrastructure in and around the town centre which need to reflect the scale of the housing development. Cllr Bloxham also expressed concerns around why the Cranbrook DPD has been delayed. Secondly, since 20 March 2018 when the Strategic Planning Committee last considered the Cranbrook DPD, Cllr Bloxham raised concerns that the Town and Parish Councils involved have had no further information or engagement on the production of the Cranbrook DPD. Thirdly, Cllr Bloxham raised concerns that there has been a continued justification from planning officers for the inclusion of the Green Wedge between Cranbrook and Rockbeare in the Cranbrook DPD. He further explained that Green Wedge policies are key elements of the Local Plan and the Rockbeare Neighbourhood Plan and should not be overridden.

 

2.

Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 216 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee meeting held on 4 September 2018 were confirmed and signed as a true record.

 

3.

Declarations of interest

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

Minutes:

Councillor Geoff Jung - minute 25 - Personal interest – Member of Campaign to Protect Rural England

Councillor Geoff Jung – minute 34 – Personal interest – Member of the Community Infrastructure Levy Members Working Party

Councillor Peter Faithfull – minute 25 - Personal interest – Member of Campaign to Protect Rural England

Councillor Susie Bond - minute 25 - Personal interest - Member of Campaign to Protect Rural England

Councillor Susie Bond – minute 34 – Personal interest – Member of the Community Infrastructure Levy Members Working Party

Councillor Mike Howe – minute 34 – Personal interest – Chairman of the Community Infrastructure Levy Members Working Party

Councillor Jill Elson – minute 34 – Personal interest – Member of the Community Infrastructure Levy Members Working Party

Councillor Geoff Pook - Personal interest - involved in the construction industry

Councillor Geoff Pook – minute 31 – Personal interest – Member of the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Councillor Graham Godbeer – minute 31 – Personal interest – Member of the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Councillor Paul Diviani – minute 31 – Personal interest – Chairman of the Blackdown Hills AONB

Councillor Roger Giles – minute 30 – Personal interest – Member of the Ottery St Mary Heritage Society

 

4.

Future Housing Needs and Requirements in East Devon pdf icon PDF 344 KB

Minutes:

The Service Lead – Strategic Planning and Development Management presented the report which outlines how the Governments Housing Needs Calculator has been used to produce a figure of 844 homes per year for East Devon in 2017, as well as the impacts of demographic change and how the affordability ratio is applied.

 

The report also highlights the changes since the report on growth principles at the September meeting and how new household projections data suggests an uplift to 953 homes per dwelling for East Devon in 2018. It is notable that within East Devon the annual housing needs from 2017 to 2018 has increased, especially when nationally it is in decline. Therefore, the Government are proposing in their consultation document that, for the short term, the household projections published in 2017 be used for housing need outputs to overcome an England wide picture of a housing needs outcome that falls below the 2017 generated level (and also below Government aspirations for 300,000 per year being built). In the longer term, they identify a need for a revision of the methodology to calculate local housing needs. This leads onto the proposed responses from this Council which will be submitted to the Government’s consultation on a proposed revised approach to determining housing numbers.

 

Furthermore, the report also highlights the CPRE evidence and picks up the issues raised in that document and how the conversation around housing needs for all groups can be taken forward. This will be driven through the commissioning of an independent study to consider the specific housing needs of all groups within the community and how these needs make up the overall housing needs for the area. Following this a Member workshop will be set up to consider the findings of the housing needs study and overall housing need.

 

Discussion covered:

·     Clarification was sought as to why East Devon has an increased housing need. In response, the committee were advised that it is partly a result of demographic changes, household projections and affordability ratios within the district. Furthermore, there is a current debate around the usability of the calculator, which has resulted in now using the 2017 housing needs data.

·     Concerns around the dysfunctional housing market and how it restricts the development of affordable housing.

·     Concerns around the lack of diverse housing developments to meet community need. In response, the committee were advised that the Oliver Letwin Review report identifies options to diversifying housing on large scale developments. It is important to understand what local people need and then to evidence that if we are to have policies in the future to diversify the housing market in East Devon. 

·     That inward migration is an uncontrollable unknown factor.

·     The need to encourage young people to stay within the district to diversify communities.

·     Clarification on when the employment monitoring report will be presented to the Strategic Planning Committee. In response, the committee were advised that the employment monitoring report will be presented in January 2019.

·     Clarification on when the housing needs  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Housing Monitoring Report to Year Ending 31 March 201 pdf icon PDF 156 KB

Minutes:

The committee considered the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management’s report outlining the latest monitoring figures on housing completions and projections and setting out the five year housing supply calculation to year end March 2018. The five-year land supply based on the 2018 figures showed that the Council could demonstrate 5.71 years supply of land for housing. However, this year’s five-year land supply figure is down from the previous year. Furthermore, although the number of homes delivered compared to last year has increased, this Council is still not achieving its average target. The projections are ambitious for the future however; some strategic sites have only recently started to deliver house building and so there is a reasonable expectation that delivery will ramp up on these sites over the coming year and increase delivery. 

 

Discussion covered:

·     Clarification was sought on the percentage of affordable housing prescribed in planning applications, as well as the percentage of affordable houses that have been delivered. In response, the committee were advised that currently this Council aims to deliver 25%-50% affordable housing and that the current delivery is at 12% - 15% based simply on the number of affordable homes as a proportion of the total number of homes delivered.

·     Clarification on the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) report and how the monitoring report is based on this. In response, the Housing Monitoring is based on the methodology of the HELAA which details how availability and deliverability should be assessed but not on the outputs of the HELAA which have not been published.  The HELAA methodology had previously been agreed by Strategic Planning Committee.

 

RESOLVED:

That the residential completion data and future projections in the District be noted.

 

 

6.

Update report on progress, resource and staffing matters for the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan and also an update on the work programme for future East Devon Local Plan production pdf icon PDF 270 KB

Minutes:

The report presented to the committee summarised the backstory to the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) and its benefits, as well as the need to retain the two additional members of staff to provide sufficient capacity in the Planning Policy Team to continue to work on the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan. The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management also highlighted that there is a need to fund the continued preparation of the necessary evidence base for the plan over the next year. The report also provided a future timetable for the GESP; the next consultation for the GESP will be in June 2019, which will be based on draft policies and site options, with the draft plan consultation envisaged for the latter part of 2019 and the final publication of the GESP in early 2021.

 

Points raised during the discussion included:

 

·     Agreement that the work being undertaken on the GESP is vital to East Devon and the need to ensure this Council funds the staff required.

·     Clarification on whether minutes are available from the GESP Officers’ meeting. In response, the committee were advised that the reports that come to this committee regarding GESP are produced by the Officers that attend the GESP meetings.

·     Concerns around the lack of transport for young people to access higher education facilities.

·     Clarification on whether the review of the Local Plan will produce a new Local Plan. In response, the committee were advised that the current Local Plan runs to 2031 and that the final published GESP will run until 2040. The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management highlighted that the timeline for adoption of a Local Plan Review is a long way off but it is important to bear in mind that the GESP will supersede large sections of the currently adopted Local Plan and so in many respects the Local Plan Review is already well underway.

·     Clarification on whether the 5-year land supply for each local authority collaborated in the GESP will remain individual or become combined. In response, the committee were advised that the decision has not been made but will need to be considered by Members in due course.

·     Concerns that the timetable for the revision of the local plan is indeterminate and that officers are requested to provide clarity on the review of the Local Plan timetable at the next committee. In response, the committee were advised that the gathering of evidence for the review of the Local Plan is already underway, for example Urban Capacity Assessments, however there is only so much officers can do with regard to the Local Plan due to the production of GESP. The committee were also advised that this Council has a duty to cooperate with other neighbouring authorities on the review and production of the Local Plan.

·     Clarification was sought on whether the Independent Reference Forum is going to meet regarding GESP. In response, the committee were advised that the Independent Reference Forum will meet, however, there is a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

S106/Community Infrastructure Levy Developer Contributions Annual Report 2017/18 pdf icon PDF 817 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report presented to the committee outlined the management and allocation of resources accrued through planning obligations and is the latest in a series of annual reports on the spend of monies collected through Section 106 agreements. This latest report also advises on the monies collected from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which has been collected in the 2017/18 financial year.

 

Points raised during the discussion included:

·     Concerns that some developer contributions have a set timeline for expenditure. In response, the committee were advised that the S.106 officer retains a list of developer contributions and their relevant timelines and is going to structure the engagement with Town and Parish Councils accordingly.

·     Clarification on whether this Council receives a report from each Town and Parish Council outlining how they have spent CIL contributions. In response, this is not something that is regularly carried out, however, it is something that the S.106 monitoring officer could pursue and include in this annual report going forward.

·     Clarification as to whether this Council could ask Town and Parish Councils to contribute to strategic infrastructure developments locally. In response, the committee were advised that this Council could broach a conversation with Town and Parish Councils regarding collaborative funding for key infrastructure projects.

·     Clarification on CIL expenditure is designed to mitigate the impact of new development. In response, the committee were advised that if a Town or Parish Council has a neighbourhood plan they would receive 25% of CIL which is subject to certain limitations on use. However, Section 106 monies do have restrictions on its expenditure and will be returned if it is not spent.

·     Clarification was sought on the pooling restrictions of Section 106 money and its expenditure. In response, the committee were advised that Section 106 money should be spent adjacent to, or near to the development concerned and must be used to mitigate the harm caused by the development. CIL collected by this Council must be used to unlock future developments.

 

RESOLVED:

1.   That the contents of the S106/Community Infrastructure Levy Developer Contributions Annual Report 2017/18 be noted.

2.   That a report outlining Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 expenditure by Town and Parish Councils in East Devon be presented to the Strategic Planning Committee in due course.

 

8.

Government Response to Consultation on Developer Contributions pdf icon PDF 133 KB

Minutes:

In March 2018, alongside consultation on the draft National Planning Policy Framework, the Government also issued a consultation seeking views on a series of reforms to the system of developer contributions. Members will recall that the April 2018 meeting of this committee endorsed a response to this Government consultation.  The Government has now responded to the consultation through a summary of consultation responses, and has presented their view on the way forward.

 

There is currently a limit on the pooling of section 106 contributions, which means that no more than five such contributions can be requiredfor the same infrastructure project or type of infrastructure (where entered into since 6 April 2010).  The Government consultation proposed to lift this restriction in certain circumstances. Given that the pooling restriction was a key to encouraging councils’ to introduce CIL, the Government will put measures in place to incentivise the uptake and continued use of the Levy to collect contributions towards addressing the cumulative impact of development; although they have not said what these measures are.

 

Furthermore, the current requirement for preparing a charging schedule is for two rounds of consultation (on a ‘preliminary draft’ and a ‘draft’).  There was broad support for the Government proposal’s to streamline this requirement. There will continue to be an obligation to consult on draft charging schedules, but the current requirement for two separate rounds of consultation will be removed.

 

Finally, in order to improve transparency around the system of developer contributions, the Government is taking forward proposals to require reporting of contributions from CIL and s.106 planning obligations in an “Infrastructure Funding Statement”.  These statements will be prepared by local authorities, and are supported for providing greater clarity and transparency.  

 

Points raised during the discussion included:

·     Clarification on whether Members’ will have access to the evidence and information regarding the production of the updated charging schedule. In response, the committee were advised that the appointed consultants, Three Dragons, have been commissioned to assess the evidence and viability of developments across the district, which determines the charges geographically, that includes  the differences between the coasts and inland development. This will be presented to Members early next year. There are current delays to the production of the updated charging schedule due to uncertainty with national policy changes and issues with aligning the charging schedule with the Cranbrook Development Plan Document.

·     Clarification was sought on the decision to remove Cranbrook from the CIL Charging Schedule. In response, the committee were advised that a decision has not been made regarding the removal of Cranbrook from the CIL charging schedule.

·     General support for the removal of Cranbrook from the CIL Charging Schedule.

·     Concern that large self-build developments do not contribute to CIL and there should be a limit to the number of these allowed in the district. In response, the committee were advised that CIL contributions are dependent on the floor space of a development and therefore the larger the developer the more CIL is paid. There are however exemptions including for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Heritage Strategy pdf icon PDF 249 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Service The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management presented the report, which sought agreement for a public consultation to be undertaken on the draft Heritage Strategy in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement.

 

The Heritage Strategy outlines three themes:

·     Theme A describes our historic environment and provides information on its designated and undesignated heritage assets and their significance.

·     Theme B sets out current policies and programmes relating to development management, conservation areas and heritage assets at risk.

·     Theme C looks at the value of our heritage as a part of sustainable development, and the social, economic and environmental benefits it provides for East Devon.

 

The report also summarises the actions required under each of these which all have their own resource implications.

 

Cllr Helen Parr, Lead Councillor for Building Design and Heritage, highly recommended the draft Heritage Strategy outlining the positive benefits of our historic environment, that the strategy has a strong theme of working with local interest groups and encompasses the expertise and enthusiasm of local people. Cllr Parr highlighted the exceptional work undertaken by the village of Colyton who celebrate their historic environment by producing historic banners and leaflets, as well as holding engagement days involving local schools and theatre groups.

 

Points raised during the discussion included:

·     Concerns were raised that the conservation of local heritage could have detrimental impacts on future development and that the strategy should only protect heritage assets where necessary. In response, the committee were advised that the strategy is about striking the right balance between the need for future development and conserving the heritage that is valued by local communities.

·     Clarification was sought as to whether the Heritage Strategy is an advisory document or the introduction of new policies. The committee were advised that the strategy is a proactive document designed to guide the implementation of current policies and not the introduction of new ones.

·     That the national theme on heritage is to conserve and enhance.   

·     Agreement that future development and innovation should not be perturbed.

·     That planning officers and Members of the Development Management Committee must always make balanced decisions and that this strategy goes some way to supporting those decisions.

·     Recognition that this Council has been criticised in the past for not having a robust Heritage Strategy.

·     That the developments built today must be of exceptional quality and design as they will be the heritage of the future.

·     Concerns from some members that the Heritage Strategy could become weakened and reiterated the importance of heritage in tourism and the economy of East Devon.

 

RESOLVED:

That the draft Heritage Strategy is agreed for public consultation in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement.

 

10.

Glover Review of Designated Landscapes - Call for Evidence Response pdf icon PDF 289 KB

Minutes:

The report presented to the committee advises that the Government has requested an independent review of England’s National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and whether they are fit for purpose. The review began in the summer of 2018 and will run until late 2019. The review is currently requesting a call for evidence and there are currently no proposals to alter designations at this stage. The report contained the Council’s proposed response to the call of evidence.

 

Points raised during the discussion included:

·     Some members expressed the aspiration of designating the current East Devon and Blackdown Hills AONB’s to National Park status. The reasons for doing so included having a greater status, comparable to other areas where it works well, increased funding and that planning would still be controlled by this Council.

·     Other members held a contrary view and felt that although AONBs are much smaller they are rooted in local communities and their boards involve local people with knowledge and expertise of the area.

·     It would cost £20 million to change the designation of an AONB to a National Park with no benefit.

·     Clarification was sought about whether funding for farming and agriculture will change post March 2019. In response, the committee were advised that there is uncertainty surrounding this however; there are current proposals to replace the Agricultural Bill and its funding mechanisms.

·     The definition of a National Park incorporates ‘open space for recreation’ which is not applicable to East Devon and it would place pressure on those to provide it.

 

RESOLVED:

That the proposed response to the Glover Review of Designated Landscapes be endorsed.

 

11.

Landscape Character Assessment - Draft Report and Proposed Public Consultation pdf icon PDF 312 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management presented the report which was commissioned jointly by East Devon District Council, Devon County Council, the Blackdown Hills AONB partnership and the East Devon AONB partnership to create a better evidence base to understand the character of our landscape and the impact of development. This report will form as part of the evidence base for the review of the Local Plan. Furthermore, the proposal is to undertake a limited public consultation with target interest groups before the final publication of the document.

 

Points raised during the discussion included:

·     Clarification was sought as to whether the Town and Parish Councils would be included in the limited consultation. In response, the committee were advised that the document would be sent to Town and Parish Councils during the consultation period.

         

RESOLVED:

1.   That the assessment and findings in the draft Landscape Character Assessment report be endorsed; and

2.   That the public consultation of this draft document to run for six weeks be agreed.

 

12.

Cranbrook Plan Development Plan Document pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Minutes:

Cllr Jeremy Wollen, Chairman of Rockbeare Parish Council, expressed concern regarding the proposed expansion of Cranbrook into neighbouring areas as set out in the Cranbrook DPD. He highlighted that the neighbouring communities were promised that the land to the south of the old A30 would not be developed and now the current Cranbrook DPD questions the integrity of the Local Plan and the Rockbeare Neighbourhood Plan. Rockbeare Parish Council and the community of Rockbeare produced a robust Neighbourhood Plan and have put their faith in planning policies to protect and retain the Green Wedge.

 

Cllr Mark Readman, Rockbeare Parish Councillor, again relating to the Cranbrook Development Plan Document, commented that under the Localism Act 2011, the parish council and local people came together in a neighbourhood forum to determine the designation of housing and neighbourhood shops. In 2012, Rockbeare Parish Council set out their Neighbourhood Plan and decided that they wanted to remain separate from any future development in East Devon’s West End. He further commented that East Devon District Council’s Local Plan includes Strategy 8, which refers to the development of Green Wedges and states that development within Green Wedges, would not be permitted if it would add to existing, sporadic or isolated development and would damage the individual identity of a settlement or could lead to settlement coalescence. Cllr Mark Readman further explained that any additional houses built in Cranbrook should be outside the designated Neighbourhood Plan areas of Rockbeare, Broadclyst and Clyst Honiton. Finally, he emphasised the time and money spent in putting together the Rockbeare Neighbourhood Plan which contains a core proposal of Rock06 which looks to protect the Green Wedge which holds a 93% approval rating.

 

Cllr Ron Forrest, Rockbeare Parish Councillor, again relating to the Cranbrook Development Plan Document, highlighted the enormous programme of housing that is being developed in and around the vicinity of Cranbrook which will overwhelm the village of Rockbeare. Cllr Forrest commented that 81% of housing development is going to be located on green-field sites and will reduce the amount of productive farmland. He also commented that 93% of Rockbeare residents are against the 1550 new houses that are planned as part of the Cranbrook expansion and do not want development to encroach into Rockbeare. Finally, Cllr Forrest expressed that the Rockbeare Neighbourhood Plan should not be overridden.

 

Paul Smith, speaking as a member of the public, also spoke to the committee about the Cranbrook Development Plan Document. He advised that much of the land overlooking the Rockbeare Valley is unspoilt landscape and that Savills, who were commissioned by East Devon District Council, identified an adverse visibility impact of development and gave alternative options – this advice has been ignored. Mr Smith raised concerns on the loss of green land and the negative impacts on local wildlife and biodiversity.

 

The committee considered the Service Lead’s – Planning Strategy and Development Management report which provides an update on the production of the Cranbrook Plan Development Plan Document and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

13.

Community Infrastructure Levy Members Working Party Terms of Reference pdf icon PDF 116 KB

Minutes:

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management presented the Community Infrastructure Levy Members Working Party Terms of Reference to the committee.

 

Members considered the Community Infrastructure Levy Members Working Party Terms of Reference.

 

RESOLVED:

That the Community Infrastructure Levy Members Working Party Terms of Reference be agreed.