Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 2 September 2025 were confirmed as a true record, subject to Councillor Geoff Jung being added to the list of apologies.

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

Minute 26. Coastal Change Management Areas

In accordance with the Code of Good Practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with planning matters as set out in the Constitution, Councillors Geoff Jung and Todd Olive advised that they had been lobbied by residents regarding coastal change management areas.

Information on public speaking is available online

Mr Shillitoe had request to speak on agenda items 1 and 7.  He expressed his concerns over the minutes of the last meeting.  He felt that there was an inherent conflict with EXMO 20 and that the site was currently not legally compliant, due to there being no mitigation strategy, and no HRA to support the Local Plan.  He felt that the maps used were inconsistent, misleading and conflicting.   He challenged the officers and urged councillors to make informed decisions with all the information available to them.

Mr Hamill had requested to speak on agenda item 7 and began by listing what he regarded as EXMO 20 failings.  He went on to describe the role of a councillor and urged members when considering Marlcombe not to repeat what he perceived to be the errors of the March consultation.  He suggested that EXMO 20 be removed from the second consultation and that the numbers be incorporated into Marlcombe.

Mr Humphrey spoke on two areas, the Regulation 19 process and the draft Local Plan.  In relation to the Regulation 19 consultation, he stated that it had been six months since the consultation had finished and he had yet to receive any responses to the questions or comments asked.  He asked when responses to the comments would be published.  In relation to EXMO 20 Mr Humphrey commented that he believed that there were direct conflicts with the draft Local Plan, which had been agreed by the Strategic Planning Committee.  He asked when the developers’ Regulation 19 information or submissions needed to align with the draft Local Plan and added that he felt that the draft Local Plan should be agreed so that EDDC could control and deliver the best possible developments for the communities.  Taking into account that the Plan would not be adopted until 2027, Mr Humphrey also asked whether a developer could submit an application for a site within the draft Local Plan for it to be approved by EDDC before the Plan had been adopted. 

Councillor Roy Collins stated that he was a proud Devonian and felt that the countryside was being ruined by developers carrying out Government policy.  He commented that there were more vacant homes than homeless people worldwide and that in the UK there were 1 million empty homes and the birth rate was falling.  He asked why more homes were required and stated that by 2050 nearly 25% of agricultural land would disappear and that farmers could not produce food for the nation if the land was being developed on.  He felt that EDDC had done nothing to protect agricultural land.  He suggested increasing housing numbers on other sites to save agricultural land.

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Services replied to Mr Humphrey’s questions.  The draft Local Plan had received over 3000 comments and responses would not be made on a 1-2-1 basis.  Officers would be responding to comments through the many reports coming to the Strategic Planning Committee and in the second  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Information on matters of urgency is available online

There were no matters of urgency to discuss.

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.

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Services’ report sought members’ agreement to changes to Policy WS01 within the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan to reflect further work that had taken place on the new community including reference to its name, Marlcombe, and specific policy requirements that had emerged through work on the masterplan and other work for the new town.

Members agreement was also sought to consult on the proposed masterplan and associated vision document, which set out its evolution. A similar document had also been prepared to show the work on assessing and mitigating the impacts of the development on transport infrastructure as well as a strategic outline business case for the development of the new town. These documents were also envisaged to form part of the second Regulation 19 consultation albeit in the case of the strategic outline business case, only the executive summary was intended for consultation purposes.  This was to ensure that the development of Marlcombe was supported by appropriate planning policy and associated evidence and guidance documents and that the vision and strategy for its delivery was fully explained to consultees through the upcoming second Regulation 19 consultation.  It was noted that Regulation 19 consultation was likely to commence in November 2025 for a six-week period.

Members were asked to review and consider the following:

·        Masterplan

·        Transport vision.

·        Strategic outline business case.

·        Revised vision.

·        Revised policy WS01.

·        Infrastructure delivery plan.

During his presentation the Assistant Director - Planning Strategy and Development Services explained that Marlcombe would have neighbourhood centres, employment land provision and employment within the town centre and two park and ride facilities which would provide focus points for public transport.  Marlcombe’s challenges included:

·        Topography

·        Heritage

·        Landscape

·        Flooding

·        Utilities

·        Noise and air quality

·        Airport safeguarding

·        Land control

Key changes included:

·        Provision of land for wastewater facilities.

·        Material recycling facilities.

·        Balancing employment land with more employment adjacent to A30.

·        Renewable energy facilities.

The engagement timeline was outlined:

·        January – March 2021 issues and options.

·        November 2022 – January 2023 Regulation 18 consultation.

·        September 2024 Masterplan consultation.

·        February – March 2025 Regulation 19 consultation.

The site allocation masterplan:

·        Retained the principle of the three neighbourhoods.

·        The town centre was located with visibility and prominence on key routes, very much at the heart.

·        There was a balance of employment spaces north and south.

·        A proposed key route which brought out access onto the A3052.

·        Opportunities to deal with the topography of the site, although some challenges remained. 

·        Park and ride facilities both north and south.

Transport vision:

·        Key features were around internalisation of trips through phased delivery of services and facilities alongside the housing, ensuring that as the new homes were built the town had the employment spaces, the community facilities and the infrastructure that it needed.

·        If trips were internalised and out-commuting minimised the town would have sustainable travel movements, so creating 20-minute neighbourhoods.

·        The town was designed to be very compact, self-contained and internalising trips where possible.

·        There were park and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Services’ report set out information and recommendations in respect of where Coastal Change Management Areas (CCMAs) were defined, the justification for this and the policy relating to CCMAs.

The CCMA boundary defined in the first Regulation 19 plan was largely based on work undertaken by the university of Plymouth. It was acknowledged that new national coastal erosion risk management mapping (NCERM) had been recently updated, but it was too late for this work to be taken into account at that time. The boundaries had now been redefined to generally account for both the University of Plymouth work and the NCERM. In the vicinity of Cliff Road in Sidmouth, the line is redrawn to align with new national coastal erosion risk mapping lines (though noting that these were similar to those shown in the first Regulation 19 consultation plan).

One option highlighted in the report and considered by the committee was to use both the Plymouth work and the NCERM to inform the plan and to take whatever was the more landward extent of the area identified as being potentially affected by coastal change. In their representation on the local plan the Environment Agency recommended this as the appropriate course of action.  

The Coastal Change topic paper concluded that the CCMA boundaries should be defined by using both the Plymouth University and the NCERM evidence and the most landward boundary should be taken to define the extent of the CCMA, in accordance with the advice of the Environment Agency.  The only exception to this approach was in the vicinity of Cliff Road, Sidmouth, where it was recommended that the NCERM was used to define the boundary.  This designated a far smaller area of land than identified by the Plymouth work and was justified on the basis that key decisions on the beach management plan happened after the conclusion of the Plymouth work. Sidmouth had been subject to detailed study and analysis in the recent past that justified taking a localised approach in this area. The line was very similar to that shown in the previous consultation plan, which was based on the beach management plan, but using the NCERM mapping overcame criticisms of the evidence underpinning the beach management plan.

Members were asked to consider revisions to Policy AR03.  The proposed changes made it clearer that the implementation of coastal management schemes would be taken into account when determining when coastal change could be expected, alongside NCERM and the University of Plymouth work.  Changes had also been made to simplify the text in relation to what kind of development might be acceptable according to when coastal change was expected.  The proposed change to clause E made the policy compliant with national advice.

Officers were thanked for their report and for reviewing the coastal change areas.

RESOLVED:  that Strategic Planning Committee endorse the officer recommended changes to the CCMA boundary and related plan policy as set out in the report.

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Services’ report outlined the key issues arising from the Dorset Council Local Plan Options Consultation 2025 that were of relevance to East Devon District Council.  It sought agreement on a formal response to be submitted to Dorset Council, focussing on cross-boundary matters including housing growth at Lyme Regis, landscape and infrastructure impacts, and shared environmental designations such as the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and National Landscapes.

Key issues for East Devon included:

·        Growth at Lyme Regis and impact on Uplyme.

·        Housing numbers and infrastructure.

·        National landscapes and the Jurassic Coast.

·        Flexible settlements policy.

·        Strategic heathland recreation migration.

The full proposed response to the consultation was included in the report and addressed the consultation questions which were of relevance to East Devon:

·        Q3: Settlement hierarchy.

·        Q8: Infrastructure delivery.

·        Q12: Flexible settlements policy.

RESOLVED:

1.     that Strategic Planning Committee agreed the proposed response to the Dorset Council Local Plan Options Consultation 2025 as set out in paragraph 3.2 this report and authorised the Planning Policy team to submit it to Dorset Council.

2.     that Strategic Planning Committee give delegated authority to the Assistant Director- Planning Strategy and Development Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Place, Infrastructure and Strategic Planning to agree a Statement of Common Ground with Dorset Council covering the issues set out in this report.