Information on public speaking is available online
Minutes:
Six members of the public had registered to speak.
The first speaker, Robert Persey spoke about rural exception sites and referred to the Council’s policy on Housing Needs Surveys which he suggested contravened Paragraph 82 of the National Planning Policy Framework as the policy did not provide opportunities to bring forward these sites to help with affordable rural housing. He advised that there were currently 5,100 families on the Council’s housing waiting list and out of the whole of the district only three parishes had conducted a Housing Needs Survey suggesting this was a deliberate way to prevent affordable rural housing. In response the Chair advised that following the adoption of the Local Plan the Council would be revising its supplementary planning document to take in account affordable housing.
The following two speakers spoke on Minute 265 Community Infrastructure Level (CIL) Bid Recommendations.
Devon County Councillor, Broadclyst Division, Henry Gent expressed his support for the four bids within his division. He emphasised the need for a primary school at Tithebarn as many of the families living there had failed to get their preferred nearest primary school places. He emphasised the need for the extension to Pinhoe Surgery as the practice have advised they would need to close their patient list this October. He also referred to the London Road, Cranbrook project advising that this footpath would be a much-needed connection to the new extensions of Cranbrook.
Ottery St Mary Town Councillor, Janice Aherne referred to the Tipton Primary School project and requested that the Committee consider deferring the project to allow the Department of Education time to clarify its need and requirements. She advised the Committee that the school was the heart of the village and if the school was removed the village would die.
The following three speakers spoke on Minute 267 East Devon Local Plan – timetable production update.
John Hamill reminded the Committee that he had previously addressed his concerns about the draft Local Plan at the meetings on 11 December 2024 and 4 February 2025 where he urged the Committee to get the critical process of the Local Plan right. He said it was clear from today’s report that the Local Plan was inadequate, and this was evident by the missing technical reports and evidence as well as the objections to the Local Plan received from statutory agencies. Mr Hamill urged the Committee to delay the Local Plan and to follow the right and lawful processes to get the site selections and the consultation right.
A statement was read out on behalf of Nigel Humphrey which highlighted his findings from the Regulation 18 Consultation about site Exmo_20 which he believed should not have been put forward in the consultation.
Thomas Shillitoe reminded Members of the concerns he and others had raised about the draft Local Plan at the meeting on 4 February. He referred to the site Exmo_20 which he said was not available, suitable or achievable and which he claimed had been falsely evidenced in the Regulation 19 Consultation and he believed the Inspector will be very concerned when the Local Plan is submitted for examination.
Mr Shillitoe sought clarification from the Assistant Director Planning Strategy and Development Manager whether he believed the Regulation 19 Local Plan was sound and had met all the necessary legal requirements.
He addressed the habitat mitigation strategy and suggested it was pointless spending CIL monies for the Pebblebed Heaths or endorsing the Wildlife Strategy when the site selections had still not been assessed to identify any potential threats. Finally, he urged the Committee to only include the preferred sites and second choice sites in the Local Plan before it was submitted for examination.
In response the Assistant Director Planning Strategy and Development Management firstly addressed the comments made about Exmo_20 and advised that a feedback report on the Regulation 19 Consultation would be brought to Committee in due course setting out the responses received and recommendations about how to proceed with the Local Plan.
He did not agree with the comments made about having false evidence in the Local Plan and explained that the evidence was an ongoing process which officers were continuing to work on to update and refine the Plan.
In response to Mr Shillitoe’s question the Assistant Director Planning Strategy and Development Management confirmed that he believed that the Regulation 19 Local Plan was sound but pointed out there was a need to review its current position after taking into account the comments received from the consultation which would be provided in the feedback report.