Information on public speaking is available online
Minutes:
Cllr A Minter of Lympstone Parish Council gave this thanks to the local ward members for their support to the Parish. He outlined the disappointment felt by the Parish Council on the lack of consultation on villages and Exmouth boundaries; but was heartened to see the exclusion of the remainder of GH72 as some comfort that the authority has listened to the concerns of the parish. Additional BUAB section at Courtlands Cross was not acceptable, as the area is closer to Lympstone’s services and allows the beginning of coalescence. The Sports ground/pitch on site would gain some support, and he suggested that a proportion of site had to keep an area for a pitch rather than later becoming housing development. He reminded the committee of the values of Lympstone which does not want to become a tier 2 settlement, and that an increase of more than 20% was not modest development.
Cllr Roy Collins of East Devon District Council spoke of his disappointment in the committee, and their failure to protect agricultural land in the district; as well as outlining world events that were detrimental to the planet. Food production was a key issue and agricultural land was being removed. There was no public consultation undertaken. The authority was the only district council with no representative to the CPRE.
Mr Hunter, Solicitor, clarified legal view consideration of new sites in reg 19 sites in response to the concerns raised by Cllr Roy Collins. Mr Freeman clarified that the site referred to by Cllr Collins in Honiton (Honi18) had been included in the regulation 19 draft plan by delegated authority as agreed by the committee, subject to a Highways agreement to the access proposed. If that site is included, it will go out for consultation and will be brought back to the committee for debate before the plan goes to Full Council.
Cllr Jayne Blackmore from Feniton Parish Council spoke on the development hierarchy and referred to correspondence on Feniton on the issue. The Parish had calculated that with the additional 112 dwellings proposed, the allocation was the highest of all service villages. The proposed dwellings were also more than three other tier 3 centres which have better access to facilities. The Parish did not feel this was moderate growth for a village with known flooding and infrastructure issues. The disused nursery site in the village could be used over the plan period but the overall plan set out for the committee to consider was too large. She asked for the rejection of site Feni08, as it had previously been rejected by a Planning Inspector on a past planning application. The site was not sustainable for a small village with poor transport links. The Parish also strongly objected to site Otry 20 as the access was not suitable due to narrow lane, bridges and no footpath.
A statement was read out on behalf of Cllr Charlotte Fitzgerald, who was unable to attend the meeting in person. The statement related to the viability study and suggested affordable housing policy amendments. Rural areas in the current local plan attract a requirement of 50 percent affordable housing. If committee endorsed the policy recommendations, this requirement would be reduced to 30 percent.
The viability study underpinning these proposals has grouped together the entire rural area of the district, and some towns, into a single bracket, which was marked as V3 and shown in green on the map on page 299 of the agenda pack. This approach did not account for the significant variance in affordability among rural settlements within the District. She was also concerned by the proposed policy written at the top of the graph on page 301, which stated that sites of zero to nine dwellings will attract a zero percent Affordable housing requirement. She urged reconsideration, first, the minimum threshold housing development size for affordable housing and second, the blanket classification of rural areas for the same.
Lestyn John on behalf of Clinton Devon Estates, spoke in reference to site allocations, specifically part of Budl01 for 50 houses. Officers had previously stated that any allocation should focus on south eastern fields of the site but subject to access requirements. Since then, further work had been done by Clinton Devon Estates to give comfort on these points, circulated to officers the previous day. Highlighted work included on the likely visibility and highways analysis. 50 dwellings can be delivered with access at a suitable point on Bedlands Lane and no significant visibility issues; access via the field would be short and could be screened by new boundary planting. The proposed development fits the character of the area and views to the surrounding area from public rights of way are very restricted.
The Chair reminded the committee that following their approval of delegated authority to examine this site, the outcome would come before the committee again at their scheduled meeting on 11 December 2024.
A statement from Valerie Ansfield, Resident of Sutton Barton, was read out as follows: -“Our objections relate to the item concerning Defining Settlement Boundaries. Residents of Salston have been participating in consideration of sites to be allocated for potential housing development.
1.As part of this we have contended that Salston is a Hamlet separate from Ottery St Mary and it appears that our arguments have been totally ignored. In fact, the boundary proposed at present splits the properties that historically comprise the Hamlet.
2. Reference to the making of footways to the town ignore the fact that the sites involved have this and many other associated problems that have led to them not being allocated - yet this report reads as though they are considered viable.
3. Other areas in East Devon in this report have been excluded for flooding impact: this is also the case here yet it is not mentioned in the report that has led to the proposed boundary outline.
Therefore, decisions are being made in reverse order, Elected Representatives are being incompletely briefed and complaints about the process which have already been lodged by us do not feature. We entirely object to the manner in which this is conducted”.