Agenda and minutes

Minute 198: Cllr M Howe: Affects & prejudicial NRI in relation to site Sowt_09; and Affects NRI for remaining sites in Clyst Sy Mary area: Owner of village store.

Minute 199: Cllr T Olive: Affects & prejudicial NRI for site whim_11.

Polt_04 Land at Poltimore Barton Poltimore

Proposed use: Employment/service station 34.2ha

Officer recommendation: Not to allocate

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Polt_06 Land at Poltimore/Broadclyst

Proposed use: Employment/service station 45.2 ha

Officer recommendation: Not to allocate

Angie Hurran, Clerk to Broadclyst Parish Council, spoke to oppose the allocation of the site, on grounds of adverse harm to the village and surrounding landscape. She outlined the heritage setting of the site, including proximity to the Killerton Estate and the Grade 1 listed church, and Poltimore House.

Ward Member Cllr Rylance also opposed the site allocation on grounds of any development being visible to the surrounding area, and the close proximity of the site to the river and amenity land.

The committee discussed the impact of the setting and the designation of an element of the site for the Clyst Valley Regional Park.

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Farr_01 Wares Farm, Clyst Honiton (south of A30)
Proposed use: Employment land 1 ha

Officer recommendation: Allocate

Ward Member Cllr Rylance spoke in support of the allocation of the site.

It was proposed by the Chair to include Farr_01 in the site allocation.

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Farr_01 in the site allocation.

Rock_09 Land at Harrier Court, Clyst Honiton
Proposed use: Employment land 5.8 ha
Officer recommendation: Allocate part site Rock_09a 3.3ha to the south of Long Lane

It was proposed from the Chair to support the split of the site and allocate Rock_09a.

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Rock_09a in the site allocation.

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation in considering Rock_09b.

GH/ED/43 Land north of Long Lane, adjacent to airport
Proposed use: Employment land 11.8 ha
Officer recommendation: Allocate

Ward Member Cllr Rylance spoke in support and made reference to consultation with local stakeholders.

It was proposed by the Chair to include the site for allocation

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include GH/ED/43 in the site allocation.

GH/ED/44 Land adjacent to Exeter Airport, Long Lane
Proposed use: Employment land 7.32 ha
Officer recommendation: Allocate (already subject to Local Development Order)

It was proposed by the Chair to include the site for allocation

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include GH/ED/44 in the site allocation.

GH/ED/45 Land south of Long Lane, adjacent to airport
Proposed use: Employment land 9.24 ha
Officer recommendation: Allocate

It was proposed by the Chair to include the site for allocation

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include GH/ED/45 in the site allocation.

GH/ED/66 Land at Venn’s Farm, Sowton
Proposed use: Employment land 19.29ha
Officer recommendation: Not to allocate

Jo O-Donnell spoke against the allocation of the site, on grounds of the adverse impact to the area. Local roads were often flooded and any development was expected to increase flooding.  She also asked how much weight was put on considering the conservation area when making an assessment of sites.

Cllr Galloway, representing the local parish, also advised that the site should not be allocated.  Sowton Lane was narrow and unsuitable for heavy vehicle traffic; and the footpath and bus stop were not close to the site. He also advised about local flooding that would only increase.

Claire Alers-Hankey, agent for the promoter, advised the committee of the assessment of the site and advised that the issues with it were not insurmountable. The promoter was aware of the heritage sensitivity, but there were good connections for commercial traffic and Devon County Council were content with the highway improvements that would be undertaken to deliver the site.

Ward Member Cllr Howe advised the committee that, leaving aside the impact to the green wedge, there was still availability for businesses at the Science Park and therefore an allocation on this site was not required.

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Sowt_15 Langdon Business Park, Sidmouth Road, Clyst St Mary
Proposed use: Employment land 9.05ha
Officer recommendation: Allocate part of site, Sowt_15a to the west of site

The Chair proposed inclusion of Sowt_15a for allocation, and to move on from Sowt_15b.

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Sowt_15a in the site allocation.

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation in considering site Sowt_15b.

Clge_23 Darts Farm
Proposed use: Employment land 3.3ha
Officer recommendation: Allocate part of site, Clge_23a (to the north east of site)

Iestyn John of Bell Cornwall, representing the owners of the site, requested allocation of both Clge_23a and Clge_23b, along with Clge_25 to enable the expansion of the successful business park.  He outlined the scale of the business park currently, with demand for additional space.  The site had good transport links.  Part of Clge_25 could have screening if that helped with visibility from the surrounding area.

Cllr Manser of Clyst St George Parish Council agreed with the officer recommendations. There would be an issue for access to Clge_25 through the existing Darts Farm car park and felt that may be unsafe for pedestrians.  An alternative access could be off the roundabout at the north, but this was already congested on a frequent basis.  He also commented on Clge_40 where he advised the access was not acceptable and would take valuable grade 1 agricultural land.

Committee endorsed the recommendation to include Clge_23a in the site allocation.

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation in considering Clge_23b.

Clge_25 Land adjoining Darts Farm
Proposed use: Employment land 4.51ha
Officer recommendation: Not to allocate

Committee discussed if the site could be reviewed to see if a section of the site could be feasible for employment land, despite no natural boundary.

Cllr Howe proposed, seconded by Cllr Levine, to request the site be reviewed and brought back for consideration.

Committee agreed to bring back Clge_25 for review, and move on to the next site allocation.

Clge_39 Land south of Old Ebford Lane, Ebford
Proposed use: Employment land 2.77ha
Officer recommendation: Not to allocate

Cllr Manser reiterated concerns about the narrow lane, and that it was a private road not adopted by the highways authority.

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Clge_40 Land south of Topsham Road, Clyst St George

Proposed use: Employment land 3.34ha
Officer recommendation: Not to allocate

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Development next to M5 and north of Topsham, Clyst Road, Sandygate, Exeter
Proposed use: Mixed, including 2.4ha employment land

Number of dwellings: 510

Officer recommendation: Allocate

Stuart Houlet of PCL Planning on behalf of the landowner, described the site as a logical extension to Exeter.  The site could accommodate a mixed use which would include affordable housing. Due to the proximity of the M5 the site had good travel links.  A masterplan for the site, in conjunction with Clge_24, would provide a development with links to facilities.

Cllr Manser of Clyst St George Parish Council, described the site as being an orphaned development, with no link to Clyst St Mary.  Rydon Lane was narrow and one way traffic; Clyst Road into Topsham was single track with no footpath.  Access to the bus stop and facilities was too far away to be sustainable. He felt the site allocation should be rejected.

The committee were shown the site in relation to existing settlements, and the Exeter proposed allocations on the other side of the district boundary to this site. The site was accepted as linear, with facilities being reached either towards Exeter or to Topsham.  A partnership approach was needed with Exeter and their allocations.  A masterplan would be required, with consideration of north and south cycle/foot paths and could include and support a primary school and a community hall.

Ward Member Cllr Howe felt that any dwellings in the centre of the linear site may struggle to access facilities.

The committee discussed the need for masterplanning, working with Exeter City Council. It could include opening access to the Clyst Valley flood plain to make into a country park.  Rydon Lane limitations were highlighted, and if enough CIL contributions could be generated to fund such a level of infrastructure.

The committee were advised that Exeter City Council were at a similar stage of production of their Local Plan, and that they could confer with them to agree a degree of policy wording to link the sites across the boundary.  Committee considered inclusion of Clge_20 and Clge_24a with this site as one allocation.

This was proposed by the Chair but fell at the vote.

Committee discussed a further review of the site, in conjunction with Clge_20 and Clge_24a, be undertaken and brought back for further consideration.

Committee requested that a review of site N_Topsham (Development next to M5 and north of Topsham, Clyst Road, Sandygate, Exeter), in conjunction with  Clge_20 and Clge_24a, be undertaken and brought back to committee; and agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Clge_20 East of Clyst Road, Topsham
Proposed use: Housing
Number of dwellings: 46
Officer recommendation: Allocate

This site was included for consideration with site N_Topsham.

Clge_24 Clyst Road, Topsham
Proposed use: Housing
Number of dwellings: 72
Officer recommendation: Allocate part site Clge_24a

This site, Clge_24a, was included for consideration with site NTopsham.

In respect of Clge_24b, Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Clge_08 Land  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197.

Cllr Peter Cain, representing Bishops Clyst Parish Council, advised the committee of their work in reviewing the Neighbourhood Plan for the parish, and have now completed a Regulation 14 consultation which regulates their proposals.

The Neighbourhood Plan identifies allocation of sites Sowt_03 and a part of Sowt_11 that is adjacent to Sowt_03, that would deliver 70 + houses available now, and includes design of an infrastructure plan that would benefit the local community now and in the future.  The Neighbourhood Plan allows expansion for the village in the future, as well as existing traffic congestion in the village, and would not impact on the existing drainage issues in the lower end of the village.  He advised that the current officer proposals would only increase traffic congestion and make worse the drainage issue.  Their Neighbourhood Plan also includes a cycleway around Clyst St Mary, allowing access to other areas easily, and deliverable in a shorter time than the officer recommendations would.

In response, the Assistant Director for Planning advised the committee that officers had met with the Parish Council, and that they were in a unique position in having allocations as part of their Neighbourhood Plan and their plan being at a very advanced stage.  It was important that the Local Plan did not undermine the Neighbourhood Plan.

Disagreement rested on the use of site Sowt_11 and how that links up with Sowt_03, with the reason for not allocation Sowt_11 being the adverse visual impact on the Bishops Court Road rural nature, where it is largely open countryside at that point.  Assessment had concluded that Sowt_09 was more centrally located and therefore on balance, a better context to add to the village.  He advised Members that there was a live planning application on Sowt_09, so there was the risk that this site could end up with consent, despite the Neighbourhood Plan being in place.

Given the advanced stage that the neighbourhood plan had progressed to and the allocations within it as well as the risk that the allocations proposed by officers would undermine the community benefits that the neighbourhood plan was seeking to achieve, the Assistant Director recommended that Members do not make any allocations at Clyst St Mary. Instead it was recommended that the Designated Neighbourhood Area Housing Requirement figure be amended by an additional 72 homes to reflect the allocations previously proposed by officers thereby giving the community the choice about where these homes are accommodated through the Neighbourhood Plan. 

Committee agreed to hear from all other registered speakers for the sites in this area before debate and recommendation on the sites.

Sowt_03 Land north of Sidmouth Road, Clyst St Mary
Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 37
Officer recommendation: Allocate

Oliver Keats, of Core Strategic Land Ltd, outlined the reasons for including this site for allocation, including sustainability and good access.  The site also had the backing of the Neighbourhood Plan. There had been positive pre-planning discussions, and there were no technical reasons to prevent development.

Sowt_09 Bishops  ...  view the full minutes text for item 198.

Councillor Olive stepped down from the Chair for this item due to his role as Ward Member.  Councillor Mike Howe took the role of Chair.

A statement was read out on behalf of Whimple Parish Council.

In respect of Whim_11 specifically, the Parish Council advised that the infrastructure of the village is not conducive to additional development; that the village should remain separate from Cranbrook and for no further land between the settlements to be developed.  The statement detailed specifics on the site, including:

·        The site contains a number of mature trees several of which have existing TPOs.  The tree in middle of old cricket pitch is unique, mentioned in Wisden and should be preserved as of historic importance;

·        Site is Woodland Priority Habitat and Woodland Improvement Area, Priority Habitat (woodland and orchard), and a national habitat and network enhancement zone 1;

·        Already subject to (partial) flooding (confirmed by the Environment Agency), and any development would run the risk of adding to this with impact both on the site and further downstream;

·        Unsafe access and no capacity for footpath.

In respect of Whimple more generally, the statement set out that the Parish Council  agreed that none of the other sites considered are suitable for development in Whimple, for reasons of falling into the Whimple Critical Drainage Area; increased flood risk; lack of open space in village; sewerage at capacity; increase in traffic on narrow roads; loss of rural character and loss of historic orchards.

Owners of the land alongside Church Road (exiting the village have indicated that this land would be available for development. While EDDC have rejected this site Whimple Parish Council think that this should be reconsidered as not only would it not add to the congestion in the village but would also enable the creation of a footpath along this road that pedestrians have to use in order to access bus services.

Whim_03 Land to the south of Grove Road
Proposed use: Housing
Number of dwellings: 72
Officer recommendation: Not to allocate

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Whim_04 Hits Farmhouse, Lilypond Lane
Proposed use: Housing
Number of dwellings: 21
Officer recommendation: Not to allocate

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Whim_07 Broadclyst Road
Proposed use: Housing
Number of dwellings: 10
Officer recommendation: Not to allocate

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

Whim_08 West of Church Road and Bramley Gardens
Proposed use: Housing
Number of dwellings: 178
Officer recommendation: Not to allocate

Simon Coles of Carney Sweeney outlined that the site is within a Tier 4 settlement, was highly sustainable due to the range of services available.  Drainage could be mitigated and the site should be included for allocation.

Ward Member Cllr Olive outlined to the committee the inadequate bus service; and that the site was not connected to the village with a safe pedestrian route.  The site itself was positive for development but the site was in a Critical Drainage Area – a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 199.

Information noted.

Information noted.