Information on public speaking is available online
Minutes:
Nigel Humphrey addressed the Committee regarding the draft Local Plan. He reminded Members that he had spoken at the meeting in January, asking them to consider the public’s concerns about Exmo_20, which had received over 2,500 objections. He expressed disappointment that these concerns appeared to be disregarded, noting that any alteration to the Local Plan at this stage would be treated as a significant change and therefore not permitted – yet he questioned, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a significant change.
Mr Humphrey also highlighted the absence of a Habitat Regulations Assessment and an air quality mitigation report raising doubts about whether such reports could adequately address the issues associated with Exmo_20 and the Pebblebed Heaths. He further questioned the realism of the spatial strategy, asking why Exmouth was expected to accommodate the highest level of growth when the area has only two access routes, both already operating beyond capacity.
Mr Humphrey urged the Committee to give serious reconsideration to Exmo_20 before it’s too late.
Thomas Shillitoe addressed the Committee regarding the draft Local Plan stating that in his view it represented a missed opportunity to resolve significant shortcomings and was therefore unadoptable, being both unsound and unlawful. He formally alleged maladministration in relation to what he described as misleading and unreliable evidence relating to Exmo_20.
He stated that over a year ago there had been no supporting Habitat Regulations Assessment and no mitigation strategy in place and that despite this the Committee were advised that officers were satisfied impacts can be mitigated, a conclusion which Mr Shillitoe argued was unsupported by evidence. He added that as recently as November, qualified professionals working on this matter were still indicating that there may be no option capable of fully mitigating the impacts.
Mr Shillitoe also highlighted additional constraints affecting Exmo_20 that had emerged since the site was selected, most recently the discovery of prehistoric archaeology. He reminded the Committee that, in light of these developments, they had a duty to revisit the site’s viability.
John Hamill addressed the Committee regarding the draft Local Plan. He noted that over 18 months, Members had been presented with detailed accounts of procedure breaches, yet Exmo_20 remains within the Plan, despite many Members acknowledging – often ‘with a heavy heart’ – that it should not be included.
In his view the Council was relying on government housing numbers and requirements as justification, and he suggested that removing the site at this stage was being portrayed as jeopardising the entire Local Plan. He argued that Members had lost sight of the needs and the wishes of the local community and of the significant harm Exmo_20 could cause to the natural and historic environment, the already fragile water and sewage systems and the local road network.
Kerin Hamill addressed the Committee regarding the Local Plan and drew attention to the definition of the word ‘consultation’ noting that the Oxford dictionary describes it as a process undertaken before a decision is finalised, with the purpose of gathering opinions and advice. She expressed concern that despite the large number of comments submitted for Exmo_20, the Council had not taken them into account, which in her view suggested a degree of arrogance, lack of care and a failure to respect the area’s natural landscape.
Mrs Hamill compared Exmo_20 to a housing allocation in Dunkeswell that had not been supported for development on the grounds that it lay within a National Landscape, was poorly located and would erode, detract from and harm the setting of the Conservation Area. She highlighted what she perceived as inconsistency between the decision and the approach taken toward Exmo_20.
She also questioned the need for further housing in the area, noting that many new properties remain empty and others have been unoccupied for years. Mrs Hamill urged Members to show courage in protecting the district’s heritage and countryside.
A statement was read out on behalf of Emily Glanfield who contended that the housing figures within the Local Plan were incorrect, inconsistent and based on outdated data. She noted that several supporting documents contained mathematical errors and did not reflect the correct calculation, which she believed to be 924.7 homes per year.
Ms Glanfield explained that pandemic-era housing trends had distorted East Devon’s figures, resulting in a number 22% higher than the 2024 figure. She added that if the 2025 data was similar to 2024, the five-year average would fall, meaning current targets were significantly overestimated. She also questioned the increasing headroom figures that East Devon had stated was a requirement from central government. The headroom was originally set at 10%, increased to 13% and expected to shortly rise to 16%. Ms Glanfield argued that headroom should remain at 10% for the first five years.
The statement warned that the Local Plan would commit the district to building on far more land than necessary, raising concerns about food security. She proposed instead 925 homes per year plus 10% for five years, reducing the total requirement from 23,408 to 20,805. Finally, Ms Glanfield encouraged councillors to use existing mechanisms to lower housing targets so that future decision-makers were not constrained.
In response to the statement from Emily Glanfield the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Services explained the recent change to the standard method for calculating housing need. He noted that this issue had been covered in a report presented at the meeting on 2 September 2025. The report made clear that the calculation changes every year because it is based on the affordability ratio. As a result, the standard method figure had recently gone down, but no alterations were proposed because the figure could rise or fall again in the future.
He also reminded Members about the 80% transition arrangements, stressing that keeping a reasonable level of headroom in the housing numbers would be important if the Council wished to defend its position.
The Chair responded to the allegations made against the Council, by explaining that, should residents believe they have grounds to claim maladministration, they must follow the formal complaints procedure. Through that process, he and the officers would address matters based on evidence, rather than accusations made in the court of public opinion. He also added that, they have the option of pursuing a judicial review if they feel it is necessary.