Agenda item

This report summarises the considerations that have been taken into account in the definition of settlement boundaries.

There are two main policies relating to settlement boundaries in Chapter 3 of the draft plan: ‘Development inside settlement boundaries’ (SP 05) and ‘Development beyond settlement boundaries’ (SP 06). At the Strategic Planning Committee meeting on 5 November 2024, it was agreed to include these policies with this report on the proposed settlement boundaries so that the policies and the boundaries could be considered together.

An evidence paper had been produced to set out how the boundaries have been drawn for individual settlements and why any changes have been made. The paper set out the general principles that have guided the process. These covered that all site allocations are included in the settlement boundary and that, generally, predominantly open land in a green wedge or the coastal preservation area has been excluded to avoid policy conflicts. Constraints such as flooding or heritage impacts have not usually been taken into account because the aim is to set out areas that are broadly acceptable for development, recognising that further details will be addressed through the development management system. An exception to this is the village of Stoke Canon, where the whole built-up area is at risk of flooding, and no settlement boundary is proposed.

The bulk of the evidence paper comprised a settlement by settlement analysis, with a map showing any existing and the proposed settlement boundaries, a summary of representations received, and any changes highlighted.

A statement from Broadhembury Parish Council was read out in part (the full statement having been previously circulated to the committee):

‘Settlement boundaries’ or Built-up Area Boundaries (BUAB) define boundaries around settlements within which different Planning policies apply. Within the boundary development is more likely to be acceptable than outside the boundary.  In the case of Broadhembury village the land outside the proposed boundary is classed as ‘open countryside’ where there is a presumption against building, except in certain circumstances. Until 2016, when the BUAB was removed it consisted of two sections split by a gap at the flood plain of the River Tale. The two portions on the Southern edge were within the boundary of the AONB (now the National Landscape).  The proposed settlement boundary has joined the previously separate sections by including the flood plain within the boundary and by enlarging the area in accordance with criteria B1 and B2. Recent flooding of the River Tale at this point makes any development unrealistic. Whilst criterion B2 clearly refers to Broadhembury Memorial Hall which has existed since 1923 we can see no further rational for B2 and must therefore assume that enlargement is based on criterion B1. We are not aware of specific applications which would qualify for B1 enlargement.  General criterion A1 (boundaries should reflect existing scale and core build) cannot be used to justify the East and West ends of the BUAB because neither end reflects the scale and core build of the village. Similarly criterion A2 (boundaries should follow clearly defined physical features…etc) does not justify the extension of the boundary to the South because it arbitrarily cuts across an open field.

We therefore submit that the application of the criteria to justify the enlargement of the BUAB from its earlier area is inconsistent in methodology.  We reject the proposal to redraw the BUAB, and the conclusions of the Site Selection report. We do not believe that the two issues should be considered independently because the BUAB has been in part redrawn specifically to include the preferred site which is itself weak in terms of methodology and legally open to lengthy and persistent challenge.  We are open to discussion with the relevant Planning Officer to develop a plan which is more consistent with what the local community seeks whilst recognising EDDC’s imperative to develop housing”.

In response, the committee were reminded that a different methodology for boundaries was in place which included making boundaries bigger to enable more natural growth and infill development in contrast to the current adopted plan, as agreed by committee, hence Broadhembury BUAB was bigger than it was previously. Members wereassured  that the area of flood zone now within the settlement boundary would not be built on due to that issue.

Clarification was also given on why proposed sites for allocation in the reg 19 version of the local plan are shown within the  settlement boundary – principle to include as committee had already agreed the allocations which would form part of the settlements in the future.

Discussion took place on:

·       Clarity was sought on footpath provision to Salston as the area is shown as outside of the settlement boundary due to a lack of footpath access , however allocation have been made on land to the north where the same issues apply; Otry_20 site is there still consultation to take place as added after reg 18. In response it was clarified that Otry_20 was included at regulation 18 stage; in response to the footpaths issue the committee had agreed that the footpaths could come forward on land to the north of Salston as part of allocated developments and link to existing development to to make these areas accessible.  ;

·       Broadhembury proposed changes to exclude flood zones may impact on other settlements; cleaner to include in the Settlement Boundary as other policies would cover prevention of building on flood zones; development plan must be read as a whole, not just individual policies.

·       Colyton: Why had small changes been made: in response, the Settlement Boundary is the black boundary on the maps that was for consideration and result of methodology for loose boundary to allow organic growth around the settlements on the periphery.

·       A request was put forward to include the exception sites in Colyton in the Settlement Boundary to avoid confusion; leading to including such exception sites in other areas for consistency assuming those sites meet the remaining criteria required.  This was put forward as a proposal and agreed by the committee.

·       OSM Otry_21 BUAB line in correct place but allocation not shown which would be corrected.

·       Old Bystock Village near Exmouth currently outside the Settlement Boundary but proposed to be included in officer recommendation – members were reminded that the site had been considered functionally related to Exmouth; again, any development within that area that may impact on the heritage buildings in the village would be assessed against other policies and with regard to the local Neighbourhood Plan where appropriate.

·       Why some areas of land that would be used for purposes other than houses were included within the Settlement Boundary, such as pitches or land for mitigation purposes.  In response advice was given that the methodology used is that if a development is providing infrastructure that is necessary to make the development acceptable, and it is adjacent to that development then logically that land is being developed (be it as infrastructure) and therefore included in the Settlement Boundary. 

·       Identifying some dwellings that should be included into the Settlement Boundary relating to Exmo_20; the boundary must be pulled back from the area close to the SSSI area as that must be protected; the committee were advised that this was the only instance where this occurs for a settlement boundary; the proximity of building to that SSSI site would fall to other policies to prevent impact of any development on that. Advice was given again that infrastructure mitigation may not become clear until masterplanning was undertaken for any site that had been allocated. Leave within the settlement boundary and rely on other policies to stop any housing development within 400m of the designated sites.

·       Exmouth inclusion of three houses in Settlement Boundary north eastern edge moved by Chair

·       Budleigh Salterton reference Budl01 boundary agreement pending is still ongoing as advised during the public speaking item.

·       Tipton St John Otry_04 site as a school previously agreed by the committee but feels that as the site is being shown as inside the Settlement Boundary it gives the impression that the site could be developed for housing; and are undermining committee’s previous decision.  In response, the settlement without a school would not make it a tier four settlement and therefore would not qualify as requiring a settlement boundary.  Currently a primary school is in existence and officers are bringing forward the boundary based on the information currently held.  An option would be to pull the Settlement Boundary back to exclude Otry_04.  The Chair proposed, in light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, that the boundary should be moved to exclude Otry_04 and Otter Close in order to protect that area for the purpose that the committee had previously agreed. This was agreed by the Committee.

·       West Hill west boundary expansion, concern about woodland section which should not be included in the Settlement Boundary.  In response, the outlying areas are likely to be low density and unlikely to have footpaths and easy access to facilities.  Officers recognised that it has been a difficult boundary to come up with for the sprawling area that West Hill covered.  Discussion on the potential inclusion of the southern section shown outside of the settlement boundary took place but the issue of the remote sections being unsustainable for access to the centre of the village was cited as a reason for not including it.

·       Clyst St Mary – clarity was sought for inclusion of Winslade Park which has no easy paths for access and was the Neighbourhood Plan to be the provider of any allocations? – in response, yes there were no allocations made and the Neighbourhood Plan would drive it.  Winslade Park will have a residential element and there will be a combination of jobs and facilities on that site, but felt still within a 20 minute walk away.

·       Uplyme – request that the settlement boundary was not correct due to distance across the settlement, topography, and lack of footpaths, so suggested curtailing it at a point along the exception site in order to make the settlement sustainable; keep consistency and reduce the sprawl of the boundary.  The boundary is inconsistent in comparison.  In response, the distances are not as significant in comparison with the West Hill area discussed and therefore why the boundary has been drawn as proposed. Measurements were clarified and the committee informed that the settlement boundary drawn for Uplyme met the criteria.  A proposal was made to reduce the boundary, which committee were informed was much smaller than the existing approved village boundary. The proposal was seconded and put to the vote and failed.

·       Whimple – concern north western edge extension – contends that that section doesn’t meet the criteria of B1 and therefore a proposal was made to reduce the Settlement Boundary to the orange line of the village boundary in the Villages Plan. In response, reference was made to an area linked to an existing development.  Clarification was made by the Chair as ward member that it was not a public space and in open countryside. It was agreed to exclude this area from the settlement boundary;

·       Newton Poppleford – raising the issue of consistency, concern was raised on the proposed Settlement Boundary in that the area described as excluded in stage 2 on the map should be included.  Road safety concerns were also raised.  A proposal to support the report recommendation failed. Therefore, a proposal to have the settlement boundary as the area shown as Stage 2 with the inclusion of area adjacent to Exmouth Road was supported.

The remaining settlement boundaries were proposed as per the report recommendation on block and agreed.

The policy wording for SP05 and SP06 was also proposed as recommended and agreed.

Recommendation:

1.     That committee endorse policies SP 05 and SP 06, as set out in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of this report for inclusion in the Regulation 19 draft of the plan.

2.     That existing exception sites are included in settlement boundaries for all areas where those exception sites meet the remaining criteria required, in order to assure consistency across the plan.

3.     That committee endorse the boundaries defined in the Settlement Boundaries Evidence Paper for inclusion in the ‘Regulation 19’ Local Plan with amendments to:

a.     Exmouth – inclusion of three houses in Settlement Boundary at the north eastern edge;

b.     Budleigh Salterton – subject to discussions on the boundary of allocation site Budl_01;

c.     Tipton St John - that the boundary should be moved to exclude Otry_04 and Otter Close;

d.     West Hill – boundary as per officer recommendation with exception of the small section on the west adjacent to the B3180;

e.     Whimple - to reduce the Settlement Boundary to the orange line of the Villages Plan boundary at the north western edge;

f.       Newton Poppleford – that the Settlement Boundary be drawn as including Stage 2 plus area adjacent to Exmouth Road, with the exact boundary to be drawn by officers for delegated approval by the Assistant Director and the Chair of Strategic Planning Committee.

(Cllr Helen Parr left the meeting for the discussion and vote on the Settlement Boundary for Colyton)