Agenda item

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

 

Throughout September and early November, the Committee had previously discussed and agreed a number of sites for allocation in the district along with a number of sites that Committee agreed to ‘move on’ from for potential further consideration at a later date.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised Committee that it was now time to reconsider the ‘moved on’ sites to address the shortfall in housing allocations compared with the requirement figure.

 

Committee were reminded about the housing requirement set by Government and attention was drawn to paragraph 2.3 of the report that summarised the five options on how the council could achieve its overall numbers.  Officers preferred Option B which meant that the 10% buffer would not apply for the whole of the Local Plan period of 2020 – 2042 but apply from 2024 – 2042 leaving a remaining housing requirement of 2,278 dwellings still needing to be allocated.  It was noted that if all the ‘moved on’ sites detailed in the report were allocated the total allocation of dwellings would be 2,485 which would meet the shortfall and also give a small additional surplus of 177 dwellings.

 

The criteria applied by officers in respect of the ‘moved on’ sites for Committee’s reconsideration were detailed in paragraph 5.2.  Members noted that legal advice had been sought on a small number of new sites including some additional land in Honiton and the advice received was that if these sites were agreed for allocation they could be included in the Regulation 19 consultation which would give the public an opportunity to comment on them before it is submitted for examination.

 

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management invited Committee to consider Recommendation 1 before they started considering the ‘moved on’ sites as this would give Committee a clear picture on the number of dwellings needed to be allocated at this meeting.

 

Questions raised by Committee Members to Recommendation 1 and to the options set out in paragraph 2.3 of the report included:

·       An update was sought on the likely publication of Government’s new guidance on the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management could not give a definitive answer but advised that it was expected by the end of this year.

·       Several members sought clarification on the outcome for Option D and queried whether this option should be explored further so Committee were clear on whether this option could be ruled out.  It was advised that although Option D would result in slightly less houses it would entail considerable risks including the need for a new start date which could be challenged at examination.  Members noted that for Option D 18,731 dwellings were to be allocated compared with 20,182 for Option B.  However Members were advised that this difference was misleading and arises because of the reduced plan period proposed in Option D whereas the annualised figure is only slightly lower.

 

Committee acknowledged the challenges ahead and sought guidance on a likely outcome if the Local Plan were to be found unsound at examination.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised they would need to start again at the Regulation 18 stage to reconsider options which could lead to the council having to deliver an extra 200 homes a year on top of the current figure due to proposed changes to the housing requirement figure arising from recent government consultation on changes to the planning system.

 

RESOLVED:

Members considered the options set out in paragraph 2.3 of the report for calculating future housing needs and noted the risks identified with each option.  Members agreed that the housing needs be calculated based on Option B as set out in the report.

 

The Committee considered the proposed ‘moved on’ allocations for the district.

 

Lymp_07 Land at Courtlands Cross, Exeter Road, Lympstone

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 100

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Thomas Shillitoe spoke in support of the allocation as it was situated on the north western side of Lympstone which was closer to the A376 and the town centre which he deemed a ‘least worst’ site.

 

Tracey Compton spoke on behalf of the residents of Exmouth and Lympstone who were opposed to the allocation and questioned why officers had recommended allocation of this unpopular site which local people had tried to protect and preserve to avoid coalescence.

 

Andrew McAusland, a resident of Courtlands Lane objected to the site as it was in a Coastal Protection Area saying it would be a blot on the landscape and have a negative impact on the wildlife as it was in close proximity to the estuary.

 

Councillor Susie Culhane, representing Lympstone Parish Council also objected to the site on heritage and landscape concerns and advised that flooding and water pollution were a critical issue in Lympstone.

 

Stuart Houlet, representing Waddington Park Limited advised committee that the development would be built on the less sensitive part of the site with an enhanced hedgerow on the northern side with access on the A376 via Thorn Farm to minimise the traffic impact on Courtland Lane.

 

Members considered residents concerns about the Green Wedge and it being in a Coastal Protection Area  and acknowledged the difficult position as officers had recommended the site for allocation.

 

Inclusion of allocation was proposed by Councillor Kevin Blakey, seconded by Councillor Mike Howe.

 

Committee endorsed to include Lymp_07 in the site allocation.

 

Lymp_08 Land off Summer Lane, Exmouth

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 14

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Officers advised that following Committee’s concerns about the access to the site Devon County Highways had confirmed they had no concerns.

 

Thomas Shillitoe spoke in support of the allocation as it was a ‘least worst’ site, closer to the town centre than other sites and was not near the Pebblebed Heath.

 

Sophie Minter objected to the site and referred to the many empty homes in East Devon that could be renovated and used.  She spoke about urban creep and that Lympstone and Exmouth need to be kept separated.

 

Susie Culhane representing Lympstone Parish Council objected to the site and read out the Council’s Green Wedge policy.  The Parish Council’s concerns focused on wildlife and heritage impacts, loss of countryside and access onto the busy A376.

 

Councillor Ben Ingham proposed to move on to the next allocation, seconded by Councillor Colin Brown.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Exmo_04 Land at Marley Drive, Lympstone

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 50

Recommendation: Allocate (southern parts of the site only)

(Exmo_04a allocated)

 

Thomas Shillitoe spoke in support reiterating his comments to the previous site.

 

Andrew Roberts objected to the site as it was unsustainable as the site would be too far away from the nearest facilities in Pines Road which would require car usage.  He also raised access concerns onto Higher Marley Road.  He referred to its ecological importance and that part of the site incorporates ancient woodland which should be protected.

 

Phil Morgan objected to the site advising that Marley Woods contained ancient woodland.  He referred to a Government statement dated 14 January 2020 that advised that planning permission should be refused unless there were wholly exceptional reasons.

 

Committee considered advice about the distance from the site which showed the distance from the site through access from the bottom of Higher Marley Road was 0.6 miles to the nearest supermarket.

 

Following a request for an update on the current housing numbers the Committee was shown a spreadsheet of the total numbers agreed for each town and parish which was being updated as each site was agreed.  Committee were advised that the current shortfall was 2,178 dwellings.

 

A proposal to move on to the next site allocation failed.

 

Inclusion of allocation was proposed by the Chair.

 

Committee endorsed to include Exmo_04 in the site allocation.

 

Lymp_09 Land fronting Hulham Road, Lympstone

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 54

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Thomas Shillitoe spoke in support of the allocation as it was a ‘least worst’ site.

 

Sophie Minter objected to the site on unsustainability reasons and inadequate roads for the increase in traffic.

 

Helen Dimond objected to sites Lymp_09 and Lymp_10 raising concerns about the flood risk advising that any surface water runoff for both sites drains into the brook.

 

Andrew Minter speaking on behalf of Lympstone Parish Council, objected to the site advising that Hulham Road was too narrow and without pavements and also raised concerns about school capacity.

 

Stuart Houlet spoke on behalf of the landowner advising it would be an attractive development with increased landscape and no loss of trees, within close proximity to local amenities.  He acknowledged the comments about Hulham Road and suggested that calming measures along Hulham Road could be introduced to increase footfall.

 

Committee discussed the unsuitability of Hulham Road.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Ben Ingham.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Lymp_10a and Lymp_10b Land off Hulham Road, Lympstone

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 100

Recommendation: Allocate (southern part of the site labelled 10a on the map); Not to allocate 10b

                                   

Thomas Shillitoe spoke in support of the allocation as it was a ‘least worst’ site.

 

Andrew Roberts spoke against this site advising it should be excluded because of the access issues onto the fast-moving Hulham Road and which had no pedestrian footpaths.

 

Andrew Minter representing Lympstone Parish Council did not support the site allocation due to access issues, lack of services and infrastructure.

 

Stuart Houlet, on behalf of the landowner, spoke in support of the site allocation but acknowledged the direction of debate was not in support.

 

The Chair proposed to move on for Lymp_10a and Lymp_10b.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Lymp_17 Land at Marley House, Lympstone

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 80

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Andrew Roberts did not support the site allocation due to concerns about access

and the site being located in an unsustainable location.

 

Lympstone Parish Council supported officers recommendation not to allocate.

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Exmo_47 Land to the west of Hulham Road, Exmouth

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 15

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Thomas Shillitoe supported the site allocation.

 

Helen Dimond objected to the site allocation as it abuts the historic estate, A La Ronde Grade, a Grade II Listed Estate and close to two Grade I Listed Buildings, which will seriously harm the historic assets of these buildings.

 

David Matthews, who spoke on behalf of 3West advised this site would be an opportunity for small scale high quality development which was promoted by the NPPF.

 

A proposal to move on to the next site allocation failed.

 

Inclusion of allocation was proposed by Councillor Geoff Jung, seconded by Councillor Olly Davey.

 

Committee endorsed to include Exmo_47 in the site allocation.

 

Axmi_24 Land west of Prestalier Farm, Beavor Lane, Axminster

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 29

Recommendation: Allocate

 

The Strategic Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management updated Committee on the current number of dwellings allocated for Axminster advising that 727 houses had been allocated with a further 354 for consideration in the report.

 

Committee Ward Member referred to all the sites in Axminster.  He did not support the allocation of site GH/ED/80 as it would need to go through another allocation for access, the topography and flooding issues were also addressed.  He raised concerns about the number of houses Axminster had already been allocated and asked Committee to consider whether Axminster had already taken its fair share.

 

Councillor Ben Ingham proposed to allocate this site as it was not in a Coastal Preservation Area or National Landscape and officers had recommended allocation.  Councillor Kevin Blakey seconded.

 

Committee endorsed to include Axmi_24 in the site allocation.

 

Axmi_11d Land on the south east side of Axminster

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 331

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Councillor Paul Hayward proposed to move on, seconded by the Chair.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

GH/ED/80 Prestaller Farm, Beavor Lane, Axminster

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 225

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Councillor Ben Ingham proposed to allocate this site as it was not in a Coastal Preservation Area, Green Wedge or National Landscape and officers had recommended allocation.  Councillor Olly Davey seconded.

 

Committee endorsed to include GH/ED/80 in the site allocation.

 

Axmi_22 Land east side of Axminster

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 100

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Committee were reminded that at the previous meeting it had been endorsed for 55 dwellings and there is an opportunity for a higher density of 100 dwellings.

 

Councillor Ben Ingham proposed to allocate this site, seconded by Councillor Kevin Blakey.

 

Committee endorsed to include Axmi_22 in the site allocation.

 

Gitti_05a & Gitti_05b Land to the west of Hayne Lane, Honiton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 310

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Committee were reminded that the discussions from the last meeting was that a more comprehensive masterplan across the whole site could be a more sustainable development.

 

David Valentine representing Gittisham Parish Council did not support the allocation of Gitti_05b as it was in the National Landscape and he considered it unsustainable as it was a distance from schools which would require car usage.  

 

Justin Lascelles representing Coombe Estate advised it was a good opportunity to deliver housing using the existing highway network and reassured Committee it would not be overbearing.

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Ward Member, Councillor Alasdair Bruce who had grave concerns over the involvement of the Coombe Estate, as the proposed masterplan had not been consulted on with affected parties and urged Committee to move on.

 

Councillor Mike Howe proposed to allocate this site, seconded by Councillor Ben Ingham.

 

Committee endorsed to include Gitti_05a and Gitti_05b in the site allocation.

 

Honi_12 Land to the south east of Cuckoo Down Lane, Honiton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 71

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Honiton Town Council and Ward Members, Councillor Jenny Brown and Councillor Roy Collins all supported the allocation.

 

The Chair proposed to allocate this site.

 

Committee endorsed to include Honi_12 in the site allocation.

 

GH/ED/39b Land south of Northcote Hill, Honiton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 100

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Councillor Serena Sexton representing Honiton Town Council advised that the site was suitable for development as it was not in a Green Wedge or National Landscape.

 

Councillor Ben Ingham proposed to allocate this site, seconded by Councillor Kevin Blakey

 

Concerns were raised about the landscape impact.  Committee were reminded that as the site abutted the National Landscape regard to the setting of the National Landscape was required as land boundaries do not necessarily follow the topography referring to page 67 in appendix 1.

 

Committee endorsed to includeGH/ED/39b in the site allocation.

 

Honi_15 Land at Heathfield, Honiton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 140

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Committee were reminded that at the previous meeting there had been confusion to the site as two adjoining fields to the east and west had been put forward which was not made clear.  Committee were advised that legal advice had been sought and it was confirmed that the whole site would be considered for allocation which would allow public consultation during the Regulation 19 stage.

 

Ray Levy objected to the site allocation advising that the site had received more objections than all of the Honiton and Gittisham sites combined and, if allowed to go ahead, would set a precedent for further development.  This protected site should not be allocated as it is the main gateway to the National Landscape to and from Sidmouth.

 

Robert Fowles objected to the site allocation on visibility concerns as the site rises steeply and would be highly visible from the edge of the existing estate and from the gateway to Honiton and surrounding area referring to the NPPF policy 77.

 

Councillor Valentine representing Gittisham Parish Council referred to a previous planning application that was refused in 2015 in which the reasons for refusal were that development should only be granted in exceptional circumstances where there is public benefit.  Nothing has changed since then apart from the council having to battle with housing numbers.

 

Councillor Serena Sexton advised that Honiton Town Council did not support the site allocation.

 

Ward Member, Councillor Jenny Brown did not support the allocation as it would constitute major development and would have an adverse impact to the town’s motto ‘town in the countryside’.

 

Ward Member, Councillor Roy Collins objected to the site allocation.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Paul Hayward.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Councillor Bethany Collins left the chamber for the next site allocation and did not take part in discussions or vote.

 

Honi_18 Land at Kings Road, Hale Close, Honiton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 136

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Committee were reminded that this was a new site that had come in through the Regulation 18 consultation and officers recommended not to allocate due to issues with access.

 

Simon Coles spoke on behalf of Carney Sweeny and asked Committee to allow more time to address the access issues advising that the scheme had not been assessed against the correct National Highways safety standards and if it had it would have produced a different result which would create a betterment compared to the existing junction arrangements.  In response officers advised that National Highways had been contacted about whether a safe access could be obtained into the site but a response has not been received yet and, on that basis, officers cannot recommend allocation.

 

Clarification was sought about whether delegated authority could be given if a satisfactory response was received from National Highways.  In response Committee were advised if Members were happy to allocate it delegated authority could be given to the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management in consultation with the Chair to remove the site if National Highways maintain their objection.

 

Clarification was sought about whether the site was in the National Landscape as detailed in the presentation.  Officers apologised for the incorrect information and confirmed the site was adjacent to the National Landscape.

 

Councillor Kevin Blakey proposed to allocate the site, seconded by Councillor Geoff Jung.

 

Committee endorsed to include Honi_18 in the site allocation with delegated authority to the Assistant Director- Planning Strategy and Development Management in consultation with the Chair of Strategic Planning to remove the site if  National Highways maintained their objections about the access.

 

Honi_05 Land to the north and south of King Street, including former Foundry Yard, Honiton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 40

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Honiton Town Council did not agree with the officer recommendation not to allocate as they considered the site was suitable for development.

 

Ward Member, Councillor Roy Collins, was disappointed with the officer recommendation as it was a brownfield site and would be suitable for flats or apartments.  He advised that the site had not flooded since 1968.

 

Officers advised that the site was in the highest risk flood zones which would not be easy to overcome.

 

Councillor Mike Howe proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Paul Hayward.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Otry_10 Land to north and south of Salston Barton, Ottery St Mary

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 20

Recommendation: Allocate (northern part outside of floodplain)

 

Ward Member, Councillor Peter Faithfull preferred this site as it was outside of the ‘Built up Area Boundary’ and the ‘Green Wedge’ with no visual impact on the surrounding area.  He raised concerns about the poor access onto Strawberry Lane and the impact on surrounding residents.

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Ward Member, Councillor Vicky Johns, who did not support the site allocation on a number of issues, which included the inadequate road network, the distinct lack of pavements and accessibility.

 

Some Committee Members were conflicted with this site due to the proposed access.

 

Councillor Bethany Collins proposed to allocate the site, seconded by Councillor Ben Ingham.

 

Committee endorsed to include Otry_10 in the site allocation.

 

GH/ED/27 Land south of Strawberry Lane, Ottery St Mary

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 60

Recommendation: Allocate

 

James Culshaw spoke on behalf of KCS Development supporting the allocation which could deliver affordable and local housing with a CIL contribution, contributions to healthcare projects and improved pedestrian crossings onto Strawberry Lane.

 

Ward Member, Councillor Peter Faithfull, suggested that if the site was proposed for allocation he would like to see improvements to Strawberry Lane as some of the road is single vehicle width.

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Ward Member, Councillor Vicky Johns, who objected to the site allocation due to the loss of grade 3 agricultural land and the lack of a safe access from the site to the town.

 

Councillor Mike Howe proposed to allocate the site, seconded by Councillor Yehudi Levine.

 

Committee endorsed to include GH/ED/27 in the site allocation.

 

Otry_01a Barrack Farm, Ottery St Mary

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 75

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Committee were reminded that the site had been brought back to committee due to concerns about the distance from the town and the landscape impact.  Members were also reminded that at a previous meeting the site Otry_09 had been allocated which extended further to the west than this site.

 

Ward Member, Councillor Peter Faithfull, objected to the site allocation as it was in a Green Wedge and would be visible from the town.

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Ward Member, Councillor Vicky Johns, who objected to the site allocation due to the loss of grade 3 agricultural land and because it lies within the Green Wedge, which should be protected.

 

Councillor Jess Bailey supported the objections raised about the site being too far for residents to access services and proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Bethany Collins.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

GH/ED/26 Land west of Cadhay Lane, Ottery St Mary

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 200

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Ward Member, Councillor Peter Faithfull, strongly objected to the site allocation as it would protrude a long distance into the Green Wedge and would be visible from many directions.

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Ward Member, Councillor Vicky Johns, who objected due to the lack of safe walking or cycling access to the town, lack of infrastructure and the site sits within the Green Wedge.

 

In view of the comments made to the previous site the Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Seat_15 White Cross, Colyford Road, Seaton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 36

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Bethany Collins.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Beer_03 Land at Quarry Lane, Beer

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 15

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Ward Member, Councillor John Heath objected to the site allocation as it was less than 600m from the Beer Quarry Caves which housed protected bats as well as other wildlife living in the hedgerows which would need to be removed to accommodate building.

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Brcl_12a and Brcl_12b Land west of Whimple Road, Broadclyst

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 100

Recommendation: Allocate

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Broadclyst Parish Council opposing to the site allocation stating that the large scale proposed failed to respect the established vision for Broadclyst’s future and that it risked creating an unsustainable precedent for future allocations.  It further stated that should the Committee be mindful to allocate, the parish council request:

1.     Separate access to the employment area

2.     Connecting foot/cycle links to the village

3.     Improvements to existing footpath

4.     Strong local connections for affordable units

5.     Protection of land allocated for self-build plots to meet local demand.

 

Alex Bullock on behalf of the landowner spoke in support of the site allocation which would provide 100 dwellings and a site for employment space which would create jobs for local people.  In addition a children’s play area and areas of public open space will be included as well an informal and semi-natural green space.

 

Concerns were raised about the size of the allocation as it was felt it would swamp Broadclyst village.  In response officers presented an indicative layout of the site to demonstrate the appropriate scale of growth.

 

The Chair proposed to allocate the site.

 

Committee endorsed to include Brcl_12a and Brcl_12b in the site allocation.

 

Budl_01 Land adjacent to Clyst Hayes Farmhouse, Budleigh Salterton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 50

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Helen Dimond spoke in support of the allocation as it had a good range of facilities and services that could accommodate more dwellings and emphasised the need to find more suitable sites in Budleigh Salterton.  It was questioned why officers recommended not to allocate when the site was surrounded by houses.

 

Iestyn John spoke on behalf of the landowner advising that the location of the site to deliver 50 houses could be achieved in a satisfactory manner which would protect the character of the Natural Landscape and the area around it.

 

Ward Member, Councillor Melanie Martin did not support the site allocation as the site was Grade 1 agricultural land on a steep slope which would have an overbearing and intrusive effect on the existing houses.

 

Following concerns about the sites proximity to services officers reminded members that the recommendation was not to allocate due to large parts of the site being in the National Landscape and that access could only be achieved in a sensitive part of the site.

 

Clarification was sought on whether the site was within the National Landscape as the table in the presentation had identified it was not.  Members were advised that all Budleigh Salterton was in the National Landscape

 

A proposal to move on to the next site allocation failed.

 

Inclusion of allocation was proposed by Councillor Geoff Jung, seconded by Councillor Olly Davey.

 

Committee endorsed to include Budl_01 in the site allocation for 50 homes with delegated authority to the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management in consultation with the Chair to determine its location and extent.

 

Budl_02 Land at Barn Lane, Knowle, Budleigh Salterton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 35

Recommendation:  Allocate

 

The Chair proposed to allocate the site.

 

Committee endorsed to include Budl_02 in the site allocation.

 

Budl_03 Land at Barn Lane, Knowle, Budleigh Salterton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 44

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Helen Diamond supported the site if it was developed alongside Budl_02 which would provide better access to the school and town

 

Iestyn John supported the site that would work better with Budl_02 to provide a connecting footpath to the existing built-up area to make a very sustainable site which could provide affordable housing.

 

Ward Member, Councillor Melanie Martin did not agree with officers views to allocate as she had concerns with the access and it would be highly visible.

 

A proposal to endorse the site for allocation failed.

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

 

Coly_02b Land at Hillhead, Colyton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 24

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Sim Blight on behalf of Acorn Property Group supported the site allocation which would be adjacent to Coly_02a which Members had already agreed to allocated.

 

Councillor Alison Stenning spoke on behalf of Colyton Parish Council objecting to the site allocation as the field was sacred to the residents of both Colyton and Colyford for walking and tranquillity and it was also suggested that the land above Burnfield Road was used by endangered bats.

 

Councillor Ben Ingham proposed the site for allocation as the adjacent site had already been proposed for allocation.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Howe.

 

Committee endorsed to include Coly_02b in the site allocation.

 

Coly_06a Land to the south and east of Colyton (adjacent to Peace Memorial Playing Fields, Coly Road), Colyton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 12

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Members were reminded that the site allocation had been brought back to Committee following a request made by Members that sought confirmation from Devon County Council about the requirement for a school.  Officers referred to the response detailed in the report that advised DCC had no current plans to build an additional school.

 

Councillor Alison Stenning spoke on behalf of Colyton Parish Council objecting to the site allocation advising that the site was the only site remaining that could accommodate a school if it was required in the future.

 

Following discussions a proposal to move on failed.

 

Councillor Mike Howe proposed to endorse the site allocation, seconded by Councillor Bethany Collins.

 

Committee endorsed to include Coly_06a in the site allocation.

 

GH/ED/72 Land at Meeting Lane, Lympstone

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 42

Recommendation: Allocate

 

James Moffatt objected to the site allocation raising concerns about poor access to local facilities which would require the need to travel by car and that it was in the Coastal Protection Area which needed to be preserved and protected.

 

Helen Dimond objected to the site allocation as it had 7 Grade II Listed Buildings within the site and referred to the ancient Devon Banks and hedgerows that would be destroyed if the development was to go ahead.

 

Woodbury Parish Council supported the site allocation.

 

Oliver Keates speaking on behalf of the landowner supported the allocation as the site was not in a National Landscape nor a Green Wedge.  He advised that although it was in a Coastal Protection Area referring to Strategy 44 it was important for Members to note that the site has not visual connection to the sea or Exe Estuary and that it would be a discreet development.

 

A proposal to move on failed.

 

Councillor Kevin Blakey proposed to endorse the site allocation, seconded by Councillor Paul Hayward.

 

Committee endorsed to include GH/ED/72 in the site allocation.

 

GH/ED/74 Land at Strawberry Hill, Lympstone

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 141

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Helen Dimond objected to the site allocate on flooding concerns advising any development on this site would be disastrous.

 

Andrew Minter, representing Lympstone Parish Council did not support the site allocation as it was within a flood zone and therefore would be unsuitable for development.

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_10 Land at Gilbrook, Woodbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 60

Recommendation: Allocate

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Andy Douglas objecting to the site allocation.

 

Cheryl McGauley could not support the current site allocation on the flooding issues but advised Members that she had met with the developer who had discussed what could be changed to make it a suitable development.

 

Woodbury Parish Council did not support the allocation due to the poor road layout which required a comprehensive strategic traffic plan and that part of the site was within flood zone 3.

 

David Matthews spoke on behalf of the landowners and developers supporting the site allocation highlighting its potential including social and economic benefits, highway network improvements and public open space.

 

The Chair proposed to endorse the site allocation.

 

Committee endorsed to include Wood_10 in the site allocation.

 

Wood_04 Land off Globe Hill, Woodbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 28

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Woodbury Parish Council did not support the site allocation highlighting to Members that the site was situated in a high-pressure gas pipeline zone and raised safety concerns with the access.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Todd Olive.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_11 Land at the rear of Escot Cottages, Broadway, Woodbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 5

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Woodbury Parish Council did not support the site allocation raising concerns about the safety of the access onto the A3179 due to its narrow entrance and its visibility issues.

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_12 Land to the east of Higher Venmore Farm, Woodbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 141

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Richard House, the landowner supported the site allocation due to its location to the centre of Woodbury and that it would abut sites that had already been allocated.  He advised that in light of the feedback received there could be potential that the northernmost part of the site could be allocated for a smaller development which could contribute to the housing shortfall.

 

Woodbury Parish Council did not support the site allocation and advised if Members were in mind to allocate part of the land for a smaller development they insisted that the remaining site be given as a SANGS area.

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_37 Cricket Field off Town Lane, Woodbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 81

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Woodbury Parish Council did not support the site allocation as the land was better used as a valuable amenity space featuring a dedicated community orchard which would impact the wellbeing of residents.  Access to the primary school would be dangerous due to its narrow road and no pavements.

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_20 Land at Town Lane, Woodbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 28

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Woodbury Parish Council did not support the site allocation due to the lack of pavements and narrow lane which included pinch points adding to the lack of visibility.

 

Iestyn John spoke on behalf of the landowner advising that the site had potential to be developed out without any harm to the cricket pitch which would be protected.  The parish council’s concerns about pedestrian access were acknowledged with an observation that there were pavements a short distance away in both directions.

 

The Chair proposed to endorse the site allocation.

 

Committee endorsed to include Wood_20 in the site allocation which included a casting vote from the Chair.

 

Wood_23 Ford Farm, Woodbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 18

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Woodbury Parish Council did not support the site allocation as its location would pose significant danger to pedestrians as it was in a isolated location some distance from the village.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Kevin Blakey.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_24 Land north east of Webbers’ Meadow, Castle Lane, Woodbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 35

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Helen Gottschalk objected to the site allocation as it was outside the village area boundary and had concerns about the sewage network with the increased number of houses proposed. She also raised concerns about Castle Lane not being able to cope with the extra vehicles.

 

Councillor Steve Parks, speaking on behalf of Woodbury Parish Council objected to the site allocation raising concerns about the high level of sensitivity of the site.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Ben Ingham.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Wood_47 Land at Pound Lane, Woodbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 59

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Woodbury Parish Council did not support the site allocation as the development would have a negative impact on the landscape and would result in the loss of Grade II agricultural land.

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Char_04b Land off Green Lane, Chardstock

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 15

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Ward Member, Councillor Duncan Mackinder did not support the site allocation advising that Chardstock was not a sustainable community and not suitable to larger scale developments referring to the already endorsed allocation of Char_04a.

 

Councillor Paul Hayward proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Ben Ingham.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Char_07 Land at North west edge of Chardstock

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 9

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Ward Member, Councillor Duncan Mackinder sought clarification on the officer recommendation as the presentation showed it was recommended for allocation.  Officers confirmed the site was not recommended for allocation.   Councillor Mackinder supported the officer recommendation not to allocate.

 

Councillor Paul Hayward proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Ben Ingham.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.