Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 6 August 2024 were confirmed as a true record.

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

Minute 135 to 142.

In accordance with the Code of Good Practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with planning matters as set out in the constitution the Chair, Councillor Todd Olive, advised of extensive lobbying to all members in respect of the proposed housing site allocations.

 

Minute 135 to 142.

Councillor Matt Hall, Affects Non-registerable Interest – He works as a Planning Officer for Exeter City Council.

 

Information on public speaking is available online. This only covers item 1 to 8 on the agenda. Details on public speaking on item 9 on the site allocations are detailed at the top of this agenda.

 

Susie Culhane spoke on The Exmouth and Surrounds Local Plan Member Working Group note of discussions, and the Feedback on potential development sites at Exmouth and Lympstone in respect of Coastal Preservation Area and Green Wedge designation report.  In her community, concerns had been raised about infrastructure capacity to cope with the needs of Exmouth and the surrounding areas. She asked if the unspent CIL funding could be utilised for this purpose as a matter of priority.

 

The Assistant Director for Planning explained the process in relation to the CIL funding, including consideration of bids later in the year for infrastructure projects.

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.

The notes of the CIL working party held on 1 August 2024 were confirmed as a true record.

This report sets out the housing requirement in more detail by identifying how many homes have already been built or have planning permission in the plan period.

The Assistant Director for Planning Strategy and Development Management set out his report to the Committee.

 

The Committee had previously discussed the housing requirement in August, when it was resolved that the emerging Local Plan should include a requirement of at least 946 homes per year. The report set out the housing requirement in more detail by identifying how many homes have already been built or have planning permission in the plan period. Windfall site expectations are then added to the total, to leave a remaining number of dwellings that should be allocated as sites, or broad locations for growth in the emerging Local Plan.

 

The calculations show that the current projected housing supply across the Local Plan period is sufficient to meet the requirement of 20,812 dwellings. However, the supply figure falls short of the Officer recommended 10% headroom by a total of 1,828 dwellings, with the supply headroom currently standing at 253 dwellings, or 1.2%. This figure needs to be kept under review as work progresses.

In addition, the report recommended adding two years to the plan period, to meet the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requirement that plans should look ahead over a minimum of 15 years from adoption.

 

Discussion on the report included what weight a planning Inspector may place on an agreed percentage of headroom, and if the amount proposed in the report was normal practice for Local Authorities.  In response, the figure was indeed good practice, and the reasons for a headroom element were explained including to provide resilience to maintaining a five year land supply.

 

 

RESOLVED that

1.   The end date of the new Local Plan period be extended by two years to the year 2042;

2.   The emerging Local Plan total housing requirement is 20,812 dwellings but is currently short of the officer recommended figure for an additional 10% of supply headroom;

3.   The emerging Local Plan housing requirement can be met, subject to agreement on site allocations at this and future meetings; be noted.

This report sets out recommendations for sites to be allocated for development through the new local plan for/at the settlements of:

·        Exmouth,

·        Lympstone,

·        Woodbury,

·        Exton,

·        Budleigh Salterton,

·        Otterton

·        East Budleigh.

The committee considered the proposed site allocations for Exmouth and surrounding areas, as set out in these minutes.

Exmo_50 Exmouth Police Station

Proposed use: Housing and redeveloped police station

Number of dwellings: 20

Officer recommendation: Allocate

 

A statement was read out on behalf of ESCAPE (End Sewage Convoys and Pollution in Exmouth) on this site, but was also applicable to all other sites that would feed wastewater to Maer Lane treatment works.  The statement covered the increase in population growth in the area, along with the current over-capacity on the current treatment works and the repeated failure of the sewer infrastructure.  ESCAPE therefore recommended that planning development is refused until South West Water carried out a full review, led by an independent expert, to lead to the production and delivery of a fit for purpose sewage infrastructure.

 

Officers advised the committee that there was continued engagement with South West Water, and they were very aware of the issues.  The committee were charged with consideration of allocation of sites at this stage, and not conditions on planning applications.

 

Inclusion for allocation was proposed by Cllr Davey and seconded by Cllr B Bailey.

 

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Exmo_50 in the site allocation.

 

Exmo_03 land at bottom of Bampton Lane

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 5

Officer recommendation: Not for allocation

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Exmo_23 Courtlands Barn, Courtlands Lane

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 12

Officer recommendation: Allocate

 

Ward Member Councillor Tim Dumper spoke against the allocation on the grounds of the site being in the coastal protection area, and if developed would result in coalescence of Exmouth and Lympstone which was not supported by local residents.

 

Committee debated the poor access issues and the opposition locally to the site.

A proposal to move onto the next site failed.

Inclusion for allocation was proposed by Cllr Howe and seconded by Cllr Hayward.

 

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Exmo_23 in the site allocation.

 

Lymp_07 Land at Courtlands Cross, Exeter Road, Lympstone

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 100

Officer recommendation: Allocate

 

Susie Culhane spoke in objection to the allocation, citing reasons of green wedge, and historical refusal of a planning application. She outlined some of the characteristics of the site and expressed concern of the single track access, as well as the lack of suitable water treatment system

 

Helen Dimond reminded the committee of the view of the Planning Inspector in 2012 and felt that to remove the green wedge between the settlements was not appropriate.

 

Susan Francis from Lympstone Parish Council outlined their concerns regarding the ecological impact and the risk of coalescence.

 

The committee discussed other reasons for not including the site, including the proximity of a grade 1 listed wall and the impact on Lympstone Manor.  Officers confirmed that the site was sensitive but could still be put forward as an allocation site with further work on mitigation of adverse impacts.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Lymp_12 Land fronting A376 and Summer Lane

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 14

Officer recommendation:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

Lymp_01 Little Paddocks, 22 Underhill Crescent, Lympstone

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 14

Officer recommendation: Allocate

 

Helen Dimond outlined the flood risks related to the site, which she opposed for allocation.  The expansion was too large for the village facilities to accommodate.

 

Susan Francis of Lympstone Parish Council also raised concerns about flood risk if the site was developed, and advised that there was a current planning application for two dwellings on the site. However the local parish did consider that some scale of development could be achieved on the site.

 

Chris Wintrell as landowner outlined details of the site including mitigation for water. He advised that the site was close to village amenities.

 

Committee discussed the close proximity of the site to the village.

 

Inclusion for allocation was proposed from the chair by Cllr Olive.

 

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Lymp_01 in the site allocation.

 

 

GH/ED/72 Land at Meeting Lane, Lympstone

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 131

Officer recommendation: Not to allocate

 

A statement from Jane Moffatt was read out which outlined reasons against allocation of the site, which included reasons of being in the coastal protection area, the lack of infrastructure to support development on this scale, flooding issues, and being unsustainable.

 

Ken Perry representing Woodbury Parish Council, felt that the site could be included but required work on drainage and waste water management to make it viable.

 

Steve Parks, as landowner, outlined the type of housing that could be on the site, and advocated the connections to local facilities. Nutwell Road would provide access.

 

Committee raised the issue of the visual impact on the norther boundary.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

GD/ED/73 Land North West of Strawberry Hill, Lympstone

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings:46

Officer recommendation: Allocate

 

A statement from Jane Moffatt was read out which outlined reasons against allocation of the site, which included reasons of being in the coastal protection area, the lack of infrastructure to support development on this scale, flooding issues, and pedestrian safety.

 

Susan Francis representing Lympstone Parish Council, objected to the inclusion of this site for reasons of considerable work to make the site viable.

 

Simon Collier, on behalf of Eagle Investments, spoke about the viability of the site and explained that the site did not have views to the sea or estuary.

 

Committee discussed the need to mitigate issues at the planning stage but felt the site could be included.

 

Inclusion for allocation was proposed by Cllr Jung and seconded by Cllr Olive.

 

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include GD/ED/73 in the site allocation.

 

GD/ED/74 Land at Strawberry Hill, Lympstone

Proposed: Housing

Number of dwellings: 141

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Susan Francis, representing Lympstone Parish Council, did not support the allocation and outlined issues with watercourses through the site.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

GD/ED/75 Land off Grange Close, Lympstone

Proposed: Housing

Number of dwellings: 6

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Susan Francis, representing Lympstone Parish Council,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

Wood_04 Land off Globe Hill, Woodbury

Proposed: Housing

Number of dwellings: 28

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_06 Land to rear of Orchard House, Globe Hill, Woodbury

Proposed: Housing

Number of dwellings:30

Recommendation: Allocate

 

A representative from Woodbury Parish Council, spoke in support of the allocation and outlined benefits to the local community.

 

Inclusion for allocation was proposed by Cllr Jung and seconded by Cllr Ingham.

 

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Wood_06 in the site allocation.

 

Wood_07 Land off Globe Hill, Woodbury

Proposed: Housing

Number of dwellings: 9

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_09 Land off Globe Hill, Woodbury

Proposed: Housing

Number of dwellings: 28

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Roger Stokes spoke in objection to the allocation, setting out reasons of poor access and as heritage grounds alongside a grade 3 listed building. The site had originally been purchased to prevent building on it, and now acted as a wildlife corridor as well as a landing spot for the air ambulance.

 

A representative from Woodbury Parish Council spoke in support of the site and that development of it would improve the village centre.

 

Inclusion for allocation was proposed by Cllr Ingham and seconded by Cllr Jung.

 

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Wood_09 in the site allocation.

 

Wood_10 Land at Gilbrook, Woodbury

Proposed: Housing

Number of dwellings: 60

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Cheryl McGauley spoke as a local resident in objection, citing reasons of pedestrian safety as a major issue and the road and bridge not being suitable for the level and type of traffic developing the site would create.

 

Peter Oliver, a local resident, outlined his grave concerns for the safety of road users and questioned the measurements used for tractors in calculating the width of access. Visibility was also very poor and the area had a history of accidents.

 

Woodbury Parish Council did not support the allocation due to reasons of the inability to assign space for safe pedestrian access into Woodbury.

 

Simon Collier, spoke in support, outlining the good range of local facilities and the lack of objection from statutory consultees in the outline application currently in place.

 

The committee were advised of the work on the current application, but the aspects put forward for pedestrian safety were still challenged locally.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_11 Land at rear of Escot Cottages, Broadway, Woodbury

Proposed: Housing

Number of dwellings: 5

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_12 Land to the East of Higher Venmore Farm, Woodbury

Proposed: Housing

Number of dwellings: 141

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_14 Land West of Pound Lane, Woodbury

Proposed: Housing

Number of dwellings: 18

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_16 Land of Broadway (phase 2) Woodbury

Proposed: Housing

Number of dwellings: 67

Recommendation: Allocate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

Wood_38 Land at Greendale Barton

Proposal: 71.2 hectares employment land

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Woodbury Parish Council spoke against the allocation of the site, to protect the woodland there.

 

Colin Danks, representative of the landowner, outlined the continued demand for business space, the rapid rate that the land could come into use, and the consequences of not meeting the demand of businesses already at Greendale Barton.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_01 Field 4583, Exmouth Road, Exton

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 14

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Woodbury Parish Council supported the allocation, providing that the flooding issues are resolved before any development takes place.

 

Inclusion of allocation was proposed by Cllr Ingham and seconded by Cllr Jung.

 

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Wood_01 in the site allocation.

 

Wood_28 Land to the North and East of Exton Farm, Exton

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 39

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Woodbury Parish Council supported the allocation, providing that the flooding issues, particularly relating to Maer Lane, are resolved before any development takes place.

 

Clare James on behalf of Clinton Devon Estates explained that work was ongoing with tenants further upstream on the issue of flood risk.

 

Inclusion of allocation was proposed by Cllr Ingham and seconded by Cllr Jung.

 

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Wood_28 in the site allocation.

 

Wood_41 Land adjacent A376 Exeter Road, Exton

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 225

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Budl_01 Land adjacent to Clyst Hayes Farmhouse

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 355

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Clare James on behalf of Clinton Devon Estates spoke in support of the site.

 

Councillor Doorbar of Budleigh Town Council spoke against including the site, due to grade 1 agricultural land being at a premium, and a lack of infrastructure.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Budl_02 Land at Barn Lane, Knowle

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 25

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Councillor Doorbar of Budleigh Town Council spoke against the allocation of the site, including that pedestrian access and speeding in that area was still an issue.

 

Simon Coles, representing Wayne Homes, supported the allocation and asked the committee to consider an increase in the number of dwellings for the site, as capacity was felt to be for 35 dwellings.

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Ward Member Charlotte Fitzgerald, who supported the application.

 

Ward Member Melanie Martin also spoke in support of the allocation.

 

Inclusion of allocation was proposed by Cllr Jung and seconded by the Chair.

 

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Budl_02 in the site allocation.

 

 

Budl_03 Land at Barn Lane, Knowle

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 40

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Clare James on behalf of Clinton Devon Estates spoke in support of the site and work that would provide safe access to the town.

 

Committee viewed photographs of the site and were reminded of the classification of the site as National Landscape, the highest classification of protection.  Such sites would not usually be put forward for allocation, but the pressure of meeting the requirements meant that the site had been included.  Committee felt this was an unacceptable use of grade 1 farmland.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Budl_05 Little Knowle

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 5

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Councillor Doorbar of Budleigh Town Council spoke against the allocation of the site, including that the site was an attractive feature in the Streetscene currently and added to the risk of flooding if developed.

 

Clare James on behalf of Clinton Devon Estates, felt the site should be included as it was close to facilities and could support modest development.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Budl_06 Budleigh Salterton Community Hospital

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 20

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Councillor Doorbar of Budleigh Salterton Town Council spoke of the success of the current hospital hub and felt the site should not be allocated.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Ebud_01 Land off Frogmore Road, East Budleigh

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 22

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Clare James, on behalf of Clinton Devon Estates, spoke in support of the site with good connections to facilities.

 

Inclusion of allocation was proposed by Cllr Jung and seconded by Cllr Ingham.

 

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Ebud_01 in the site allocation.

Otto_01 Bell Street

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 10

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Clare James, on behalf of Clinton Devon Estates, spoke in support of the site, including good connections to transport and local facilities.

 

Inclusion of allocation proposed by Cllr Howe, seconded by Cllr Jung.[DH1] 

 

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Otto_01 in the site allocation.

 

Otto_02 Adjacent to North Star

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 8

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Clare James, on behalf of Clinton Devon Estates, spoke in support of the site, as an in-fill site.

 

Committee sought advice on the flood zone classification, and if that could be overcome through planning conditions.

 

Inclusion of allocation, against officer recommendation, proposed by Cllr Ingham, seconded by Cllr Jung.

 

Committee endorsed to include Otto_02 in the site allocation against officer recommendation.

 

Otto_15 Hayes Lane

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 32

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Otto_04 Rydon Close

Proposal: Housing

Number of dwellings: 32

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next item.

 

The committee noted this item for information.

The committee noted this item for information.