Information on public speaking is available online
Minutes:
12 members of the public had registered to speak on minute 6 – East Devon Local Plan – Consultation feedback, timetable and future workplan.
Mr Thomas Shillitoe said that the Regulation 19 evidence demonstrated false statements and misleading evidence and that it was the responsibility for the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Manager to help the Committee to make informed decisions and not to mislead them. He urged the Committee not to be talked out of reviewing some sites and referred them to Exmo_20 which he claimed missed core evidence that demonstrated that it was not a viable site. He suggested that the reallocation sites should be restricted to sites that passed the HELAA process or were either first or second choice sites.
In response to Mr Shillitoe’s submitted question ‘can Mr Freeman confirm in his professional opinion if, on the 4th of February 2025 when advising Councillors at the Strategic Planning Committee, he believed that the Regulation 19 plan was sound and legally compliant?’. The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Manager confirmed that he did believe that it was sound at that time but noted that there was some additional work that needed to be done and that he was confident that it will comply with all relevant legal tests by the time that it needs to be submitted for examination.
Mr Nigel Humphreys sought reassurance that the Regulation 18 process had been followed correctly in relation to site allocation Exmo_20. He referred to various Strategic Planning Committee meetings which had discussed Exmo_20 and in particular the meeting of 6 September 2022 in which documentation had specifically confirmed that Exmo_46 was being promoted instead Exmo_20. He also referred to two new sites Exmo_20a and Exmo_20b which had appeared in the report pack of the meeting on 1 November 2022 and advised that these two sites had not been mentioned or discussed. Mr Humphrey sought clarification as to when the Committee had agreed to remove Exmo_46 and reinstate Exmo_20 and when the Committee had agreed the two new sites Exmo_20a and Exmo_20b. In response the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Manager apologised for the confusion and confirmed that all the sites had been taken through the correct process advising that Exmo_46 was part of Exmo_20 which had been merged to create a larger site and then was divided up into Exmo_20a and Exmo_20b. He acknowledged there had been a lot of response for Exmo_20, which would be taken into account when preparing a future report to the actions, if any, that are needed for that site.
Mr Paul Griew, representing Sidmouth’s Cliff Road Action Group addressed Policy AR03 – Coastal Change Management Areas (CCMAs) and suggested that this policy should either be dropped or amended as there was little evidence to support this policy nor does it appear to benefit any local purpose. If the Committee were minded to amend the policy Mr Griew advised that householders should be allowed to extend or alter their properties subject to the usual planning permissions at their own risk and that the policy should specifically state that the CCMA designation will be removed upon completion of these works.
Mrs Kerin Hamill said that the 1,110 comments from people commenting on Exmo_20 were being ignored and that the Local Plan was not sound as it went against many of East Devon District Council’s policies. Mrs Hamill advised that the main site entrance would be onto the dangerous B3179 road and would have an adverse impact on trees, hedgerows and woodlands as well as the destruction of ecosystems by covering the site with concrete, bricks and tarmac. She pleaded with councillors to visit the site to see for themselves that the land was not suitable for development.
A statement was read out on behalf of Joanna Chalker who queried the site selection methodology which included a key criterion that the site was required to be within a 1600 metres walkable distance to services. She asked the Committee to reconsider Exmo_20 as it was incorrectly stated as being in a sustainable location as its main access point was 4340 metres from Exmouth train station and a 4 mile drive from Exmouth centre. Ms Chalker suggested that the Committee should consider Whimple for the reallocations due to its good road transport links and that it had a main line railway and was close to the secondary school at Cranbrook.
Ms Emily Glanfield submitted the following question:
Since 3rd September it has been confirmed that Exmo_20 has no meaningful vehicular access to Exmouth. It is accepted that housing would need to be concentrated on the Southern part of the site at Exmo_20, so the lack of vehicular access to Dinan Way would require cars to drive at least a kilometre in the opposite direction away from Exmouth town centre to join the main access at the B3179, a country road, before driving back down into Exmouth. The direct result of allocating Exmo_20 would be forcing cars to drive more miles, making longer, indirect car journeys from all of the proposed 700 homes. Furthermore the situation has changed significantly since 3rd September in that the long awaited Dinan Way extension is now finally underway, meaning that the Hulham road sites will link directly to the A376. Can you confirm that you still believe Exmo_20 to be the least worst option, and a sustainable and accessible location? In response, it was advised that the Committee would address this question in debate for this item.
Abi Mewse referred to cross-boundary impacts which she suggested had not been considered enough particularly when housing developments near parish borders (Cranbrook) will heavily impact neighbouring communities and services (Whimple). She addressed some procedural concerns specifically relating to Whim_08 (Bramley Gardens) that officers did not consider suitable but Committee had allocated it in the Local Plan. She referred to paragraph 5.5 of the report that suggests that allocations can no longer be challenged as they had already gone through a logical and comprehensive site allocation process which she did not agree with as the process appeared neither transparent nor evidence-led. Ms Mewse sought clarification about how and when members of the public can challenge the late-stage allocation of a site such as Whim_08 which was not supported by Planning Officers. Ms Mewse also asked a question about AI use and whether the Council had an AI policy in place to govern the ethical and responsible use of AI in planning decisions.
In response the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Manager confirmed that the procedural process had followed a very open and transparent process with all the site allocation decisions being made in public during Strategic Planning Committee and members of the public had been given an opportunity to comment on those sites through the consultations stage of the Local Plan. The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Manager also confirmed that the Council did have a policy of AI use and that it was used in accordance with the Council’s privacy notice published on the website.
Karin Rabik raised deep concern for Woodbury Common, which she said was one of the most highly designated conservation areas in the South West of England as it would be severely impacted by the major development of 700 houses at Exmo_20. Mr Rabik asked whether another site could be considered with less harm and risk to wildlife as the Common carried national and international ecological protection and was not only a site of specific scientific interest but also a special protection area for conservation, a nature reserve and was also in the process of being included in the local nature recovery strategy of Devon as high value land.
Justin Shaw spoke about Whim_08 and noted that the Committee’s original aspiration was to allocate sites that were recommended for allocation. However as the Committee was unable to meet the required housing numbers set by government Councillors had to reconsider sites that fell below the threshold and unfortunately Whim_08 was one of those sites.
Mr Shaw addressed the site Whim_08 and sought assurances from the Committee that due consideration will be given to tactical issues associated with this development that had originally not been recommended for development and where appropriate may be removed from the allocation. He also sought clarification on what feedback was being provided to the government to improve future housing development policy noting the feedback being captured throughout this process.
The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Manager reassured Mr Shaw that the Council had always and will always continue to push back on the government’s housing numbers by pointing out the problems that East Devon District Council face with East Devon’s severe environmental and infrastructure constraints. The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Manager also reassured Mr Shaw that the Committee had been provided with all the necessary information for the sites to help them make informed decisions and pointed out that on occasions the Committee’s views had differed from officers recommendations.
John Hamill advised the Committee that it was his fourth time addressing his concerns about the failings for Exmo_20 and felt that he was not being listened to. He referred to the 1,110 responses in the feedback report for Exmo_20 which proved that people were concerned and that he could not understand why this site was still being considered for allocation as it was clear there was overwhelming evidence against Exmo_20. He urged the Committee to listen to their electors and remove the site from the Local Plan.
Councillor Jo Yarwood spoke on behalf of the residents of Whimple raising concerns about flood risk issues and pedestrian safety for the two sites that had been allocated in the village. All the roads that lead into the village have single lane access and without pavements and that the increase in houses would lead to more cars in a village that already experiences near misses on a daily basis. Councillor Yarwood also raised a concern that the site Whim_08 would be encroaching onto the Green Wedge.
Tony Burch, a retired chartered Civil Engineer spoke about the mapping of the Coastal Change Management Areas for Cliff Road at Sidmouth. He referred to page 79 of the feedback report for Policy AR03 and opposed this policy as the Cliff Road CCMA map was not based on any erosion data that is in the LPA evidence library or elsewhere in the public domain and so it was not justified. He summarised 3 factual evidence points supporting his opposition and said in conclusion that the Cliff Road CCMA map was not justified with published erosion data and suggested that it was not sound or legally compliant and requested that the Cliff Road CCMA map be reviewed.
In response, the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Manager acknowledged the concerns raised by Mr Burch and advised that these would be discussed with the relevant officer.