Agenda item

Public speaking for this item has been limited to no more than 2 speakers on any one site.

The Committee received a presentation from the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management on the list of sites that Members had requested officers to reconsider in light of a higher number of objections received from the public and statutory consultees from the first Regulation 19 consultation.

 

Members noted that site Lymp_01, which had previously been suggested had been included in error and would therefore not be considered and that site Honi_18 which had not been previously mentioned had now been included as it had come to light that a petition of over 80 signatures objecting to this site had not been addressed in the feedback report which the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management offered his apologies for.

 

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management reminded Members about the need to remain in the transitional arrangements introduced by the updated National Planning Policy Framework as this allowed the plan to meet only 80% of the district’s currently identified housing need.  He also asked Members to consider the National Planning Policy Framework regarding the two-phase Regulation 19 consultation, noting its relevance to the site allocation discussion.  The guidance clearly states that the content of an emerging plan must not change significantly from what was presented at the initial Regulation 19 stage as this could potentially lead to the need to find an additional 5,000 homes.

 

Councillor Ingham asked why the four large sites, were considered after the Committee had already gone through a detailed process of identifying a wide range of potential housing allocations in existing settlements to meet the emerging local plan target. The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management acknowledged that focusing on the large sites might seem appealing, as it would reduce pressure on existing settlements.  However, he explained that these sites were found to not support sustainable development over the plan period.  Councillor Ingham disagreed, saying that the sites were dismissed simply because they were no longer needed to meet the housing target.

 

Clarification was sought from officers about what could be done to avoid the Inspector determining that the plan had undergone substantial changes.  Members were advised that some changes could be made but they must be mindful of making significant changes as these would change the transitional arrangements.  For example, Exmo_20 includes 48% of the total number of homes allocated in Exmouth and so any loss of this site would constitute a fundamental change as this percentage of houses could not be made up elsewhere in Exmouth.

 

EXMOUTH

 

Exmo_47 – land west of Hulham Road, Exmouth.

Proposed use: residential, 15 dwellings

 

Main issues:

Impact of heritage assets – close to the Grade I Point in View Chapel, Grade I The Manse and Grade I A La Ronde.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain Exmo_47 as an allocation for 15 dwellings though with policy refinement to follow to more fully emphasise heritage protection matters.

 

Exmo_20 – land at St Johns, Exmouth.

Proposed use: mixed use development, 700 dwellings

Main issues

Harm to the Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA

Loss of biodiversity, ancient woodland and wildlife corridors

Impact on heritage assets

Flood risk

Poor access from B3179

Unsustainable location

Procedural flaws

Mineral constraints beneath the site

 

Main issues addressed:

400m development buffer to be provided from the boundaries of the site to the Pebblebed Heaths to coincide with some of the higher more open parts of the site.

Create a vehicular access off the B3179 to the north eastern corner of the site to run through the 400m exclusion zone.

Mineral resource assessment to be undertaken to ensure mineral safeguarding.

Detailed work completed on heritage assets in terms of visual connectivity

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain Exmo_20 as an allocation for 700 dwellings with amended policy wording to address heritage and mineral safeguarding.

 

Exmo_17 – land to the south of Littleham, Exmouth.

Proposed use: mixed use/residential, 410 dwellings

 

Main issues:

Within designated National Landscape

Potential harm to the setting of St Margaret and St Andrew’s Church and surrounding historic landscape

Traffic access

Local infrastructure and services pressure

 

Main issues addressed:

Creation of a 250m buffer between the site and church to reduce adverse impact on the setting.

The more sensitive areas of the site will be left as open space.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain Exmo_17 as an allocation for 410 dwellings.

 

Exmo_08 & 16 – Littleham Fields, Exmouth

Proposed use: Residential, 45 dwellings combined

 

Main issues:

Harm to the setting of Grade II listed farmhouse and the Maer Valley landscape

Impact on wildlife and biodiversity

Concerns on local infrastructure

Impact on roads, schools, sewage and water infrastructure

Potential flooding issues

Traffic congestion

 

Main issues addressed:

Farmhouse does not sit in isolation of development so additional impact of additional development is reduced

Visual impact varies at different times of the year

Benefits outweigh the harm as in a relatively sustainable location.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain Exmo_08 & 16 as an allocation for 410 dwellings.

 

Exmo_18 – Littleham Fields, next to Liverton Business Park, Exmouth

Proposed use: Employment

 

Main issues:

Southern part of the site is adjacent to the National Landscape

 

Main issues addressed:

Policy to mitigate landscape impacts.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain Exmo_18 as an employment allocation limited to 1.8 hectares.

 

Public Speaking

Nigel Humphrey strongly opposed the continued inclusion of Exmo_20 in the local plan advising that despite over 20 documented issues the report remains unclear and contradictory.  The report warns of risk from “significant changes” without defining what those are.  He reminded the Committee that a year ago officers did not recommend this site, yet it was approved without full understanding.  Since then, more issues have emerged, raised not only by residents but also by statutory bodies including Natural England, Historic England, Devon Wildlife Trust and the Environment Agency.  Over 1,100 objections were submitted during consultation and even members of the Committee have expressed regret over its approval and the only justification for keeping it in appears to be meeting government housing numbers and avoiding delays.  Mr Humphrey urged the Committee to reject the site and make a responsible decision.

 

John Hamill also strongly opposed the allocation of Exmo_20 and reminded the Committee that at the last meeting the Chair had said he had not voted for this site,  Councillor Brian Bailey at the meeting in February said that he wished he had never voted for it and a year ago officers did not think this site should be allocated.  Devon Wildlife Trust, East Devon National Landscape, Natural England and Historic England all oppose this site.  No-one wants Exmo_20.  Mr Hamill urged the Committee to follow their own common sense and reject it.

 

Councillor Nick Hookway, as the Devon County Councillor for Exmouth and Budleigh Coastal Division, raised concerns regarding highways and access issues related to proposed site allocations, particularly Exmo_17 and Exmo_20.  For Exmo_17, improvements to the local road network and national cycle routes were essential especially where the route passes through Bidmead sheltered housing as increased cycling traffic poses risks to vulnerable residents.  Whilst he supported the proposed cycle route amendments connecting to the South West Coast Path there was still no mention of improved access to Devon Cliffs Holiday Park, Castle Lane or the new road mentioned in the neighbourhood plan.  Also, the proposed roundabout at Salterton Road and Liverton Business Park deserves greater attention, especially as it could serve multiple sites.  Turning to Exmo_20 he had deep concerns about the access via the B3179 due to its environmental sensitivity and proximity to the heathland and widening the road would be unacceptable.  The report’s suggestion that ‘mitigation measures may be required’ is a gross understatement as Exmo_20 risks turning a valued natural area into suburban sprawl, damaging tourism and wildlife.  He urged the Committee to take a strategic, joined-up approach to consider placemaking and shared infrastructure across sites, rather than treating them in isolation.  In response to Councillor Hookway’s comments about a new roundabout at Salterton Road the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that this can only be required if it was necessary to make the development acceptable in highway terms and currently the Highway Authority does not consider it essential so it cannot be enforced through planning policy.  He also addressed the concerns about the impact of increased vehicular movements on the Pebblebed Heaths and advised that consultants were currently assessing this and preparing a mitigation strategy and their findings will be added to the evidence base before the next Regulation 19 consultation.

 

Questions from Members included:

·         In response to a question about whether the impact on wildlife and woodland could be mitigated for Exmo_20, officers advised that the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA), which forms part of the evidence base, concluded that with proposed mitigations, the site is currently acceptable.  However, further work is ongoing, particularly around vehicle emissions and their effect on the heathland but at this stage, there are no environmental barriers to allocating the site.

·         In response to a question about whether it could be possible to get a connection into St John’s Road via parcel 12 on the diagram, officers advised that vehicle access was not feasible (as shown on page 38 of the agenda) but pedestrian and cycle access is expected to improve site connectivity.

·         In response to a question about whether it could be possible to consider limiting the speed limit to 40mph limit on the B3179, officers advised that this would be addressed at the planning application stage.

·         Clarification was sought on the current percentage of dwellings in Exmouth

·         In response to a question about the types of mineral beneath Exmo_20, it was advised that there is sand and gravel and that it is owned by the landowner.

 

Comments during debate included:

·         Serving on this Committee is incredibly difficult as every time we try to move forward with the plan the housing numbers shift, public concerns grow, and no community wants development near them.  Nobody wants to lose farmland and landscapes, but we must face the fact that we have a legal duty to deliver housing numbers set by government, even if we disagree with them.  East Devon is rich in heritage and protected landscapes, but government policy does not recognise this.  We have a chance to deliver 80% of the required housing, it is not perfect and not easy but rejecting the plan risks losing control entirely and having to find 5,000 more homes.  Removing Exmo_20 means finding 700 homes elsewhere.  This is a tough position, but we must make the best decision for all of East Devon, not just one town.

·         It was suggested that a compromise could be reached for site Exmo_20 and to just allocate housing on the south side of Exmo_20 as the north side would be more difficult.  In response, the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management explained that by taking into account the 400m buffer zone and the mineral extraction zone means that development on this site would only be on the south side.

·         A concern was raised about Exmouth’s sustainability as the further out you go the more difficult it becomes.

·         Totally against this site as it appears that officers are bending over backwards to try and make Exmo_20 work and there is a limit to what you can do and what you cannot do because the main road.

·         Reference was made to the comments made by officers about the inability to access through Exmo_18 due to the water course and it was suggested to join together Exmo_20 and Exmo_18 to provide funds for a bridge which would help solve the access issue.  It is important to try and look at all potential issues and outcomes.

 

RESOLVED:

To retain site allocations Exmo_47, Exmo_20, Exmo_17 Exmo_08, Exmo_16 and Exmo_18 in the Local Plan.

 

AXMINSTER

 

Axmi_01a – land west of Musbury Road.

Proposed use: 2-hectare employment,

 

Main issues:

Flood risks

Archaeological interest on the site for the two World War II pill boxes and the potential route of the Fosse Way Roman Road, the route of the Axminster and Lyme Regis light railway, a trackway for prehistoric flint and medieval pottery.

Close to two Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

 

Main issued addressed

The site owner was requested to undertake the necessary archaeological works, but it has not proceeded.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Remove Axmi_01a as an employment allocation due to the constraints.

 

Axmi_02, Axmi_08 and Axmi_09 – land east of Musbury Road.

Proposed use: residential,438 dwellings

 

Main issues included:

Heritage and archaeological sensitivity due to proximity to Roman Fort and Fosse Way on the northern part of the site

Flood risks

Road safety concerns on A35

Road safety and access issues on Musbury Road

Inadequate sewerage infrastructure and surface water flooding

 

Main issued addressed

Further archaeological work to be carried out.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain Axmi_02, Axmi_08, Axmi_09 as a combined allocation for 438 dwellings subject to archaeological concerns not establishing an unreasonable constraint to development (this information is not currently available)

 

Public speaking

Simon Coles from Carney Sweeny spoke on behalf C G Fry & Son who were promoting these sites for development confirmed that a GFS survey had been completed on the northern part of the site and that a trenching plan of 30 trenches has been agreed with the County Archaeologist which would commence in September and the results will be provided in November. 

 

Questions from Members included:

·         Clarification was sought about the November timing for the results of the archaeological works as the plan had to keep to a strict timeline.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management confirmed that it was later than he had hoped but that some initial findings may provide clarity.

 

RESOLVED:

To remove Axmi_01 as an employment allocation and retain Axmi_02, Axmi_08 and Axmi_09 as an allocation for 438 dwellings subject to the archaeological findings.

 

HONITON

 

Honi_07, Honi_12 and Honi_13 – land adjacent/near to St Michaels Church.

Proposed use: residential,111 dwellings combined.

 

Main issues included:

Honi_12 is dependent on Honi_07 for access

Concerns about landscape and heritage impact due to proximity to listed buildings

Legal compliance concerns over the consultation process and late inclusion of Honi_12

Impact on the Blackdown Hills National Landscape

Partly adjacent and seen within the context of the East Devon National Landscape

 

Officer Recommendation:

Remove sites Honi_07, Honi_12 and Honi_13 from the plan.

 

Honi_18 – land at Kings Road, Hale Close, Honiton.

Proposed use: residential,136 dwellings

 

Main issues included:

An error had occurred in the feedback report that had not identified that a petition had been submitted including over 80 signatures objecting to this site.

Road safety and access issues.

Impacts to environment and wildlife

Heritage and visual impact concerns

Site abuts the Blackdown Hills National Landscape

 

Main issues addressed

National Highways and Police recommend introducing a new speed limit extending the existing 30mph limit in a south easterly direction up the A35.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain the allocation of site Honi_18 for 136 dwellings within the plan.

 

GH/ED/39b – land south of Northcote Hill (south of railway) & GH/ED/39a (north of railway)

Proposed use: residential,100 dwellings

 

Submissions on behalf of the developer made provision for up to 300 dwellings on the site.  Further work indicates to accept the increase capacity in a reasonable landscape sensitive way, and which could help deliver improvements to walking, cycling and bus access which are currently poor.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain the site GH/ED/39a and increase the allocation to 115 dwellings and retain site GH/ED/39b and increase the allocation to 195 dwellings.

 

Public speaking

Dan Rogers from Bell Cornwall spoke on behalf of Coombe Estate and expressed disappointment on the proposal to remove Honi_07 and reminded Committee that it was in a highly sustainable location, close to public transport, services and town facilities, it scored high in the HELAA process, that it was a second choice site in the Regulation 18 consultation and at the meeting in September 2024 officers and Committee endorsed to allocate for the site for 30 dwellings.  Overtime Honi_07 was merged with Honi_12 to form a larger allocation which the Combe Estate had concerns about as Honi_12 is more prominent and many of the issues in the officer’s report seem to stem from combining the two sites. Mr Rogers addressed the two main objections raised for landscape impact and heritage concerns advising that Honi_07 was well screened by mature trees and additional planting could further reduce visual impact and that the concerns for the nearby church gates and cottage listed could be mitigated with open space and planting.  Mr Rogers urged members to retain Honi_07 and consider increasing allocations elsewhere in Honiton.

 

Ben Luxton from Stags spoke on behalf of the landowners for Honi_12 and expressed disappointment on the proposal to remove the allocation saying he did not agree with the officer recommendation as the site was fundamentally deliverable.  He addressed the main issues. advising that the access was fully supported via Honi_07 from Weatherall Road and that the landowners were happy to proceed with the policy as drafted.  Mr Luxton disagreed with the heritage concerns as the site sits further away and benefits from strong existing buffers which could also be potentially facilitated referring to the previous speaker’s suggestion of heritage mitigation for Honi_07.  He suggested that appropriate policy wording could be amended to require a full heritage assessment at the planning stage which would address the heritage and landscape concerns.

 

Stuart Lees, a Honiton resident spoke about a petition he had put together objecting to Honi_18 with over 80 signatures from residents and said that every single person expressed their concerns about the traffic flow and the safety of the A35 as it comes down into Honiton.  He urged the Committee to go back and look at this in light of strong public opinion to rethink the flawed traffic plan as the road is not safe, extremely busy and dangerous.

 

Simon Coles spoke on behalf of the site owners for Honi_18 and acknowledged the residents’ concerns about road safety.  He advised that although there had been no highway objections raised by the Highways Authority the road speed could be reduced to slow down the traffic coming down the hill and that the landowners would maintain full and meaningful engagement with the community when the time comes if the allocation is retained.

 

Bethan Haigh spoke on behalf of Taylor Wimpey promoting GH/ED/39a and GH/ED/39b and supported the officer’s recommendation to increase the allocations advising that technical evidence shows that these increases can be comfortably accommodated.  She advised that planning permission had already been granted for GH/ED/39a and that the landowner was currently preparing an outline planning application for GH/ED/39b advising that Devon County Council were supportive of the proposed transport strategy that includes signalizing under the railway bridge and extending the footpath into Honiton.

 

Questions and comments from Members included:

·         In response to a question about the public transport for the Northcote Area it was advised that this would be resolved at the planning application process stage.

·         A Honiton Ward Member questioned why the Ward Members and Honiton Town Council had not been consulted about Honi_18 when it was agreed to be reconsidered.  The Ward Member also suggested that the public had been kept in the dark about the plan when the site was included last year.  In response the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy & Development Management advised that it had been acknowledged in the report that the site was not part of the Regulation 18 consultation, but it was part of the Regulation 19 consultation which had undergone a lot of publicity.

·         It was questioned whether the process of preparing the local plan had confused the public as some sites that the public thought would not be included had ended up in the plan.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management sympathised with the public trying to engage and following the process and agreed that there were lessons to be learned with the different stages of the consultation.

 

Councillor Mike Howe proposed the officer recommendation as written which was seconded by Councillor Olly Davey.

 

Further comments included:

·         Heavy traffic comes along Kings Road, and the visibility is horrendous.

·         In response to the question about where would the 30mph speed limit be extended to slow down the traffic for Honi_18, the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management did not have the answer but reminder members that the Police and the Highways Authority were happy in principle so it would be hard to reject the site on highway safety grounds.

 

 

The following amendment to the motion was proposed by Councillor Colin Brown and seconded by Councillor Kevin Blakey. 

 

To retain Hon_7, Honi_12 and Honi_13 as a combined allocation in the plan.

 

Councillor Brown advised that he could not support the officer recommendation as in his opinion Honi_07, Honi_12 and Honi_13 were closer to amenities with good bus services and were close to the train station and within walking distance to the town centre.

 

Comments made by Members on the amendment included:

·         It was suggested that as St Michaels Church was the issue it would be better to look at the sites separately instead of all together to see if the heritage impact can be mitigated.

·         The landscape impact is high for Honi_13 compared to Honi_07 which is a very sustainable site.

·         To assist with the debate the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management provided some context to how the heritage and landscape impacts differed between the three sites.  This included Honi_07 being the most sensitive on the historical environment and both Honi_12 and Honi_13 being more sensitive on the National Landscape.

 

Councillor Paul Hayward supported Honi_7 and Honi_13 as allocations as these two sites combined could provide some residential dwellings that were in keeping with the heritage assets and proposed a further amendment to retain Honi_07 and Honi_13 but to Honi_12, which was seconded by Councillor Mike Howe.

 

The Chair sought advice from the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management who advised that he stood by his previous comments as including these sites in the plan could not be justified.

 

RESOLVED:

1.    To remove Honi_12 as an allocation in the Local Plan.

2.    To retain Honi_07, Honi_13, Honi_18, GH/ED/39b and GH/ED/39a as allocations in the Local Plan.

 

SEATON

 

Seat_13a – land west of Axeview Road.

Proposed use: residential 39 dwellings

 

Main issues:

Archaeological interest on the site for the adjacent Roman and earlier settlement at Honeyditches Scheduled Monument

 

Main issued addressed

Further archaeological work to be undertaken.

 

Officer Recommendation:

That should archaeological work come back and set out a robust case to allow for development in the site Seat_13a should be allocated in the plan.  If not, the allocation should be deleted.

 

RESOLVED:

That should archaeological work come back and set out a robust case to allow for development in the site Seat_13a should be allocated in the plan.  If not, the allocation should be deleted.

 

FENITON

 

Feni_08 – land adjacent to Beechwood.

Proposed use: residential 83 dwellings

 

Main issues:

Flooding

Sewage

Traffic

Sustainability

 

Main issued addressed

Although the site originally performed well in assessment especially its location and public transport one key change is that planning permission was granted on appeal for land at Colestock Road which had previously been rejected.  During that appeal the Council defended refusal based on concerns about the scale of growth in Feniton being a tier 4 settlement, but the Inspector considered that the level of grown was appropriate which the Council must now take into consideration.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain Feni_08 as a housing allocation for 83 dwellings

Otry_20 – land to the south east of Bridge Cottages

Proposed use: employment 4.64 hectares

 

One of the few village employment sites allocated for development in the plan and would be consistent with the spatial strategy to increase settlement self-containment and meet the needs of the community with no significant adverse development impacts.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain Otry_20 as an employment allocation.

 

Public Speaking

Olly Ansell from Grassroots Planning spoke on behalf of the landowners and applicant for Feni_08 advising that a planning application was currently submitted in line with the allocation for 60 dwellings and to include 50% affordable housing and a sustainable drainage system to reduce the volume of water flowing off the site.

 

Honiton Ward Member, Councillor Roy Collins reminded the Committee that the land around Feniton where the developments are proposed was either grade 1 or grade 2 agricultural land which would grow good crops.

 

RESOLVED:

Retain Feni_08 as a housing allocation for 83 dwellings and retain Otry_20 as an employment allocation.

 

WHIMPLE

 

Whim_08a – land west of Bramley Gardens

Proposed use: residential 50 dwellings

 

Main issues:

Green wedge

Flood risk

Impact on wildlife

Lack of safe pedestrian access and procedural issues in allocation

 

Main issued addressed

Further flood modelling will be needed and would come forward through any planning application process.

Although there was a slight incursion into the Green Wedge the Committee previously concluded that this would not materially impact on those issues.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain Whim_08a as a residential allocation of 50 dwellings

 

Whim_11 – land at Station Road

Proposed use: residential 33 dwellings

 

Main issues:

Flood risk

Impact of protected trees

Traffic and pedestrian safety

Land of Local Importance designation

 

Main issued addressed

Revised policy wording to reflect the comments about the Land of Local Importance.

Further flood modelling will be needed and would come forward through any planning application process.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Retain Whim_08a as a residential allocation of 50 dwellings

 

Public speaking

Simon Coles from Carney Sweeney representing the landowners for Whim_08 and Whim_11 concurred with the reports advising that the sustainable developments would provide much needed affordable housing.  He confirmed that all the technical surveys and assessment would be undertaken on both sites to demonstrate safe walking routes to the village centre, ecology etc and to alleviate the risks of flooding he advised that all new homes would be kept outside of the flood zone. He also advised that Whim_08a would be an opportunity to create a highly attractive corridor of green and blue infrastructure. The landowners are committed to fully engage with the parish council and the local community to help get things right and to help create a community orchard and provide safe connections to the village centre.

 

Justin Shaw, a resident of Whimple acknowledged the challenges the Committee faced and acknowledged the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management response about whether Green Wedge provides a moratorium on planning and housing development in the area.  He appealed to the Committee to decline Whim_08 referring to Green Wedge and coalescence between Cranbrook and Whimple and sought clarification about where the expansion of Whimple would stop.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management was unable to confirm what would happen to Whimple in future Local Plans and was unable to confirm what planning applications might come forward but did give reassurance that there was a substantial Green Wedge between Whimple and Cranbrook to prevent coalescence from happening.  In response Mr Shaw advised that even a small loss of a Green Wedge could set a precedent to suggest it is ok to gradually chip away and if it happens on both sites, over time, it could lead to two areas merging. By allowing even a small erosion now, are we accepting that future outcome?

 

Councillor Yarwood representing the parish council made representation on behalf of the residents of Whimple advising that the concerns previously raised by the community still stand and were on record.  One of the most pressing concerns is about pedestrian safety and as this is already a serious issue in the village a speed watch initiative was launched due to dangers posed by traffic entering and exiting the village which has at least 4 or 5 key pinch points where the road narrows to a single land and no pedestrian footpaths.

 

On behalf of the residents Councillor Yarwood asked:

How will the council mitigate the increased risk to pedestrian safety? New developments often use shared surfaces to slow down traffic and reduce the separation between cars, pedestrians and cyclists.

How will footpaths be introduced in areas where roads are already too narrow for safe walking?  This is a common issue in many villages as there is often a lack of footpaths in tier 4 settlements, particularly on narrow lanes.  However, as vehicle speeds in villages are usually low many people are comfortable walking along these lanes.

How will the inevitable hard landscaping from new homes and parking areas not increase flood risk? Hard landscaping can be designed to allow water to drain properly using sustainable drainage systems.

 

Councillor Todd Olive spoke about Whim_08 and acknowledged the concerns raised about Whimple merging with Cranbrook.  He said in his opinion 50 houses that had been previously agreed for this site was too many especially considering the findings in the latest flood risk assessment and proposed two changes to the policy which were seconded by Councillor Brian Bailey.

 

The two changes were:

Ø  to add wording to ensure development does not cross the western ridgeline, which visually separates Whimple and Cranbrook

Ø  to reduce the number of homes from 50 to 30 which was more appropriate for the site’s size and character

 

Councillor Blakey, Ward Member for Cranbrook supported the proposed amended policy wording as this would mean a visual split between Cranbrook and Whimple and that the roof lines for the new development in Whimple should be kept down to a level so that the view on the ridge line remains the same which would be feasible with the topography that already exists.

 

Councillor Howe did not support the proposed wording to reduce the number of houses from 50 to 30 as this number had not been properly assessed and suggested an amendment to change the wording to allow for ‘up to a maximum of 50’ which would then enable the planning application to determine the quantity.

 

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management explained that officers had applied a consistent methodology when assessing housing numbers across all sites.  He expressed support for Councillor Howe’s suggestion, noting that it aligned with this established approach.

 

Councillor Olly Davey (Chair of EDDC’s Planning Committee) also supported Councillor Howe’s revised policy wording, noting that officers had confirmed the proposed number was a reasonable allocation for this site.

 

The Planning Solicitor advised that there did not appear to be a clear rationale for selecting 30 dwellings, instead of 50 dwellings, whilst in contrast, specifying ‘up to 50 dwellings’ would align with officer’s advice and so demonstrate a more consistent approach.

 

In light of the advice received Councillor Olive, as the proposer accepted the amendment made by Councillor Howe, which was also accepted by Councillor Brian Bailey, as the seconder.

 

RESOLVED:

Retain Whim_08a as a residential allocation subject to revised policy wording:

Ø  to add wording to ensure development does not cross the western ridgeline, which visually separates Whimple and Cranbrook

Ø  include wording ‘up to a maximum of 50 dwellings which was more appropriate for the site’s size and character

 

Councillor Todd Olive left the chamber for site allocation Whim_11 and did not take part in the discussions or vote.

 

RESOLVED:

Retain Whim_11 as a residential allocation for 33 dwellings.

 

Clge_25a – next to Darts Farm.

Proposed use: employment

 

Main issues included:

Flood risk

Highways

Archaeology concerns

 

Main issues addressed

Awaiting additional information for the archaeology on the site

 

Officer Recommendation:

Wait for further information before drawing conclusions on the potential allocations for this site.

 

RESOLVED:

To wait for further information before drawing conclusions on the potential allocations for the site.