Agenda item

The Chair welcomed everyone to the reconvened Strategic Planning Committee meeting and asked the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management to provide an update about the current situation on the housing numbers.  It was confirmed that at the end of the previous meeting Members had agreed to allocate 1,567 dwellings, leaving a shortfall of 711 dwellings needed to meet the housing requirement figure set by Government.  This figure included a 10% headroom.

 

GH/ED/38 (incorporating Feni_09 & 11) Land at Sherwood Cross, Feniton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 225 (taken as a whole)

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Ward Member Councillor Alasdair Bruce who did not support the site allocation as he considered the number of homes suggested for Feniton was unsustainable.  He raised a concern about the reasoning for not including in the housing numbers any of the current active planning applications as to not include these distorts the true picture of how much this village has sacrificed for East Devon.

 

Feniton Parish Council supported the officer recommendation ‘not to allocate’ due to the sheer scale of numbers proposed for a tier 4 settlement which would be unsustainable.  Over 500 residents had signed a petition for no more development in Feniton which the Parish Council supports.

 

Following the comments made by the Ward Member and Parish Council clarification was sought on the total number of dwellings that had already been allocated in Feniton.  Members were advised that 42 dwellings had been allocated with a further 83 dwellings proposed for allocation as detailed in the agenda.

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Feni_01 Land at Feniton, forming part of Sherwood Farm

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 46

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Feniton Parish Council supported the officer recommendation ‘not to allocate’ as the access would be on a narrow lane which floods regularly with no footpath or street lighting.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Jess Bailey.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Feni_07 Lyndale, Feniton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 60

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Feniton Parish Council supported the officer recommendation ‘not to allocate’ as the site was the location for the much needed flood alleviation works.

 

Councillor Jess Bailey proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Todd Olive.

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Feni_08 Land adjoining to the west and south-east of Beechwood, Feniton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 83

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Feniton Parish Council did not support the site allocation referring to the site being subject to a Planning Inquiry in 2014 in which the Inspector dismissed the appeal on grounds that Feniton was not a sustainable location for large scale housing.  Feniton Parish Council now considered these conditions in Feniton were worse in 2024.

 

Members discussed the number of dwellings proposed and whether this was a reasonable number for a tier 4 settlement.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to endorse the site allocation, seconded by Councillor Yehudi Levine.

 

Committee endorsed to include Feni_08 in the site allocation.

 

Feni_10 Westlades, Feniton

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 36

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Feniton Parish Council supported the officer recommendation ‘not to allocate’ as the site is situated above the village having an adverse impact due to flooding risk, the access would be on a narrow lane with a blind bend with no footpaths linking to the old and new parts of Feniton.

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Feni_14 (supersedes Feni_04)

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 75

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Hawk_01 Field south east of Hawkchurch School, Hawkchurch

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 12 dwellings and 0.25 hectares of employment land

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Members were reminded that the site had been brought back to Committee to consider a smaller site to accommodate 12 dwellings and to provide for employment land provision.

 

Councillor Moe Dodson representing Hawkchurch Parish Council referred to a resident’s survey which was carried out in 2023 in preparation for their neighbourhood plan in which 44% of residents had wanted to see less than 20 dwellings and 59% agreed with the preferred site.  Concerns were raised about the community shop which should not be put in jeopardy from rising ground rents and business rates.

 

Ward Member, Councillor Duncan Mackinder supported the reduced number of dwellings proposed which aligned with the community’s views.

 

Councillor Ben Ingham proposed to endorse the site allocation, seconded by Councillor Paul Hayward.

 

Committee endorsed to include Hawk_01 in the site allocation.

 

Musb_01b Baxter’s Farm, The Street, Musbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 8

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Musb_05 Doatshayne Lane, Musbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 16

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Newt_05 Land to the east of Exmouth Road, Newton Poppleford

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 27

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Members were given an update to the reason why the site had been brought back to Committee.  Officers advised that correspondence had been received from the landowner confirming the ownership of land to provide a footpath to run parallel with the main high street.

 

Members discussed the need for a small amount of development in the village.

 

Councillor Paul Hayward proposed to endorse the site allocation, seconded by Councillor Geoff Jung.

 

Committee endorsed to include Newt_05 in the site allocation.

 

Newt_04 Land to the west of Badger Close, Newton Poppleford

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 28

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Members suggested the footpath link proposed for Newt_05 could be used for this site allocation.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to endorse the site allocation, seconded by Councillor Yehudi Levine.

 

Committee endorsed to include Newt_04 in the site allocation.

 

Payh_03b Markers Park, Payhembury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: Approximately 30

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Officers advised Committee that the site had been brought back to Committee as Payh_03a had been allocated which adjoins this site and therefore there was potential to increase the size of the allocation to include Pay_03b.

 

Naomi Osborne did not support the site allocation as it was unsustainable for the small tier 4 settlement which already had 10 dwellings under construction and adding the 15 dwellings endorsed by Committee for Payh_03a this would total 25 dwellings.  To extend the total number of dwellings to 46 would be totally disproportionate and unacceptable.

 

Councillor Paul Thomas, representing Payhembury Parish Council opposed any further development on the site raising concerns about the access and the narrow roads that would not be able to cope with the increase in traffic.

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Dan Yeates, Planning Agent on behalf of the landowners who advised that allocating the whole site could provide a higher number of affordable homes to help address local need and enable a better solution to be explored by providing more space to accommodate well-designed housing alongside open space and supporting infrastructure.

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Ward Member Councillor Richard Jefferies advising that if there was any change in the boundary of site Payh_03a it should be to accommodate the 15 dwellings, preserve (and enhance) the ecology of the marl pit area and wider site and buffer existing houses, not to facilitate an increase in the number of dwellings.

 

The Chair agreed with officers’ recommendation and proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Plym_03 Land at Plymtree (north of the school)

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 30 (Note: application for 30 houses 23/1247/MOUT)

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Officers referred Committee to the site plan detailed in the report and the two key considerations.  The first being that the access would be from the eastern side which could lead to a bigger development into the western side in the future.  The second consideration is that the planning application submitted includes a significant number of community benefits and if the whole site was not developed these benefits would not be possible.

 

Pete Thomas from Bell Cornwell representing the landowner asked Committee to consider 3 key points:

1.     Endorse the site allocation for 30 dwellings as detailed in the current outline planning application which would allow for a school car park and improved footpath links to local services improving connectivity to a new village green.

2.     It has been recognised that additional families are needed to ensure the school thrives;

3.     It would support young people with longstanding local connections to the community.

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Ward Member, Councillor Richard Jefferies advising that doubling the number dwellings would not be reasonable and asked Committee to consider Plymtree, not ‘the site’, saying that surely the village comes first.

 

Committee asked for it to be noted that there was a drawing error on page 392 and to note the line should go down to the road.

 

Councillor Ben Ingham proposed to endorse the site allocation, seconded by Councillor Geoff Jung.

 

Committee endorsed to include Plym_03 in the site allocation.

 

Plym_05 Land west of the village hall, Plymtree

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 43

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Sidm_34 Land between Furzehill and Hillside, Sidbury

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 43

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Committee were advised the reason that the site allocation had been brought back to Committee was to reconsider the whole site which would include Sidm_34b alongside Sidm_34a.

 

Philip Parsons objected to the site allocation on 4 points:

1.     No safe access to the site;

2.     Flooding frequently occurs on the roads;

3.     Detrimental to wildlife

4.     Out of character to the Listed Building and overdevelopment in the National Landscape in a village with no public amenities.

 

Helena Ryan objected to the site allocation raising the following concerns:

1.     Repeated flooding due to runoff along Burnt Oak, including this site, causing damage to properties and making some parts of the road impassable. 

2.     The proposed development would be highly visible due to its steep slope and existing properties would be overlooked leading to a loss of privacy.

3.     The narrow A375 road is inadequate for the volume of traffic and combined with a lack of off-street parking making it a hazard trying to navigate buses, farm vehicles and lorries on a daily basis.

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Dan Yeates, Planning Agent on behalf of the land promoter addressing the benefits of bringing forward the whole site which would include the ability to deliver the second phase of the DCC multi-use path, to deliver more affordable housing and to provide more open space and at least 10% biodiversity net gains.

 

Ward Member, Councillor John Loudoun objected to the site allocation referring to appendix A on page 279 which stated the site should be kept to the north east of the valley (Sidm_34a) and therefore to allocate Sidm_34b would be contrary to this endorsed site allocation.  He reiterated the previous speakers comments about water runoff from Burnt Oak and the damage caused to properties from flooding and raised concerns about the lack of a safe access that cannot be achieved from the narrow A375 as it lacks a footpath and has blind bends.

 

In response to the concerns raised about the access officers clarified that DCC Highways had confirmed the access from the A375 was acceptable and achievable in principle but more details would be required to confirm this and to identify any mitigation.

 

Members discussions about this site allocation included the visual impact, the higher density of homes and the flooding issues.

 

A proposal to move on failed.

 

Councillor Mike Howe proposed to endorse the site allocation, seconded by Councillor Geoff Jung.

 

Committee endorsed to include Sidm_34 in the site allocation.

 

Uply_01 Land at Sidmouth Road, Uplyme

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 92

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.

 

West_03 Rear of Hasta-La-Vista, Windmill Lane, West Hill

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 5

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Councillor Jess Bailey proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Todd Olive.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Councillor Todd Olive as Ward Member for Whimple stepped down as the Chair and Councillor Mike Howe chaired the meeting for site allocations Whim_03, Whim_07 and Whim_08.

 

Whim_03 Land to the south side of Grove Road, Whimple

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 30

Recommendation: Not to allocate

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Whim_07 Land south of Broadclyst Road, Whimple

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 10

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Simon Coles spoke on behalf of the landowner who supported the site allocation and suggested that the access could be taken from Rats Castle and the site which is close to the village centre, primary school and GP surgery could accommodate 5 dwellings.

 

Discussion took place about whether the site was located within the built-up area boundary.  Officers advised that it was not and that half the site was within a flood zone.

 

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

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Whim_08 Land west of Church Road and Bramley Gardens, Whimple

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 50

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

Simon Coles spoke on behalf of the landowner who supported the site allocation and explained how the site could work.

 

Discussion focussed on the inconsistent approach to the tier 4 settlements and some Members felt it was difficult to oppose the allocation of the site.

 

Councillor Todd Olive proposed to allocate in the northern half of the site and no further south than the edge of the existing built-up area boundary, seconded by Councillor Geoff Jung.

 

Committee endorsed to include Whim_08 in the site allocation with delegated authority to be given to the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management in consultation with the Vice Chair to determine the exact boundary of the allocation.

 

Development next to the M5 and north of Topsham, Clyst Road, Sandygate, Exeter

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 510 dwelling and 2.4 hectares employment land

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Stuart Houlet spoke on behalf of the majority landowners explaining that the site would provide a sustainable and logical urban extension delivering a comprehensive mixed-use development to help meet the housing shortfall.

 

Councillor John Manser, representing Clyst St George Parish Council highlighted the need for safe walking and cycling links as residents are finding the southern part of Clyst Road into Topsham unusable and narrow.

 

Councillor Mike Howe proposed to allocate the site, seconded by Councillor Todd Olive.

 

Committee endorsed to include the Development next to the M5 and north of Topsham in the site allocation.

 

Committee sought clarification on the total number of dwellings that had been allocated during the meeting up until that point.  Officers confirmed that the shortfall figure at the start of the meeting was 711 and the shortfall figure was now 19 dwellings.

 

Clge_20 East of Clyst Road, Topsham

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 46

Recommendation: Allocate

 

The Vice Chair made the Committee aware about an error on the map that showed sites Sowt_03 and Sowt_09 as allocated but advised these sites had not been allocated and therefore should be removed.

 

The Chair proposed to endorse the site allocation.

 

Committee endorsed to include Clge_20 in the site allocation.

 

Clge_24 Clyst Road, Topsham

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 40 (Clge_24a) (Clg_24b not calculated)

Recommendation: Allocate (Clge_24a) Not to allocate (Clge_24b)

 

Clyst St George Parish Council confirmed they were happy with officer recommendation.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to endorse the site allocation for Clge_24a only, seconded by Councillor Todd Olive.

 

Committee endorsed to include Clge_24a in the site allocation.

Committee agreed to move on from Clge_24b.

 

Clge_25 Land adjacent to Darts Farm, Clyst St George

Proposed use: Employment

Number of dwellings: 1.5 hectares

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Committee were reminded that the site had been brought to Committee as it was felt that a larger expansion of Darts Farm could be accommodate as employment use which would be good for local economy.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to endorse the site allocation, seconded by Councillor Ben Ingham.

 

Committee endorsed to include Clge_25 in the site allocation.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to endorse the site allocation for Clge_24a only, seconded by Councillor Todd Olive.

 

Committee endorsed to include Clge_24a in the site allocation.

 

Clho_09 Land to north of Exeter International Airport

Proposed use: Employment

Number of dwellings: 15.3 hectares

Recommendation: Allocate

 

Reference was made to Henry Gent’s submission who spoke about Exeter Airport during public speaking at the meeting on 29 October and it was questioned why the site had not been allocated for housing.  Officers advised that the site was not suitable for housing due to the noise impact from the airport.

 

Councillor Ben Ingham proposed to endorse the site allocation for Clho_09. seconded by Councillor Paula Fernley.

 

Committee endorsed to include Clho_09 in the site allocation.

 

Brcl_24 & Brcl_25 Land at Redhayes, Broadclyst

Proposed use: Housing

Number of dwellings: 60 across both sites

Recommendation: Not to allocate

 

A statement was read out on behalf of Collier Planning highlighting the positive interest in employment development in this part of East Devon

 

Councillor Jess Bailey proposed to move on from Brcl_24 seconded by Councillor Paula Fernley.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Councillor Paula Fernley proposed to move on from Brcl_25 seconded by Councillor Mike Howe.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Committee were asked to consider the following sites that could accommodate smaller sized new settlements on the western side of the District.

 

Land between Clyst St Mary and Clyst St George

Chris Booker, co-chair of the Oil Mill Lane Residents Association spoke against the allocation suggesting that the 2,000 dwellings proposed would be unsustainable due to the insufficient infrastructure, the unsuitable link road due to its narrowness and would be costly to widen and prone to flooding.

 

Simon Coles who spoke on behalf of the landowners referred to the three issues raised by officers that he disagreed with:

Sustainability  - reference was made to nearby Hill Barton Business Park, Greendale Industrial Estate, Winslade Park and Crealy.

Viability – the development could deliver the infrastructure needed to support it.

Competing with the new community – this development would be completed across at least two Local Plan periods and would complement the new community and not compete with it.

 

Councillor Manser representing Clyst St George Parish Council advised that Clyst St George residents were opposed to the development as the small village would be totally swamped by the 2,000 houses.

 

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

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Land between Crealy and Greendale

A statement was read out on behalf of the Colin Danks, landowner who believed the site to be a credible and deliverable option delivering a substantial level of homes and jobs.

 

Councillor Geoff Jung proposed to move on, seconded by Councillor Mike Howe.

 

Committee agreed to move on to the next site allocation.

 

Addlepool new village

Councillor Manser representing Clyst St George Parish Council objected to the development as it would double the size of the village and would be totally unsustainable.

 

The Chair proposed to move on.

 

Committee agreed to move on.

 

The Chair reminded Committee about the two outstanding recommendations that Committee were required address.  These were:

 

Recommendation 2

That Committee agree to allocate in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan the sites Committee have voted approval within this report for allocation.

 

It was suggested that a caveat should be included in the recommendation to take into account some outstanding sites and that delegated authority should be given to the Chair and Vice Chair of Strategic Planning in consultation with the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management to make any necessary amendments.

 

RESOLVED:

Committee agreed to allocate in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan the sites agreed approval within this report with delegated authority to the Chair and Vice Chair of Strategic Planning in consultation with the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management to make any necessary amendments.

 

Recommendation 3

That Members agree not to allocate the sites listed in Appendix 2 of this report and the sites moved on from during the course of the meeting.

 

RESOLVED:

Committee agreed not to allocate the sites listed in Appendix 2 of this report and the sites moved on from during the course of the meeting.