Decision details

To receive and note a report from the Head of Planning and Regeneration on the progress of the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan

The Cabinet had before it a * report from the Head of Planning, Economy and Regenerationwith regard to the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan Draft Policies and Site Options consultation document and its Sustainability Appraisal Report and Habitat Regulations Assessment Report.

 

The Leader stated that the concept of the GESP had been supported by the previous administration and by the Council as a whole, it was now time to approve the draft policies and plans for consultation.  The report before the meeting contained a list of draft policies and a site options paper with indicative plans. Of the recommended site options, 5 were in Mid Devon although no formal allocation had been made.  There was a need to look at the options and consider the recommendations in the pack.  He outlined the other authorities in the partnership which was being supported by Devon County Council.  He reported that East Devon were considering withdrawing from the partnership and that a decision would be made by its Council on 20 August but that it wanted to continue to liaise with other authorities.  He hoped that Mid Devon would continue to work with other authorities in respect of the GESP.

 

The Planning Officer (Forward Planning) addressed the meeting highlighting by way of presentation:

 

·         The importance of the document before members and it being the culmination of a very significant volume of work by officers from partner councils following a significant evidence gathering process

 

·         The involvement of members throughout the process

 

·         Not all the site options within the documents would be required

 

·         The involvement of the reference forum and the PPAG in formulating the draft plan

 

·         The further opportunities to shape the GESP post consultation

 

·         The reasons for the plan in line with the NPPF, joint plan making encouraged by central Government, the existing and growing functional link between the administrative boundaries which included the travel to work area, the economic area and the housing market area.

 

·         By working together additional funding could be sought from Government

 

·         The need for the GESP – so that a overarching strategic plan could be formed, the coordination of growth across the 4 areas and the duty to cooperate required constructive, active and ongoing engagement with partners

 

·         The relationship of the GESP with other individual plans, the contents of the plan with the strategic overview, the overarching vision for the area, policies which referred to the climate emergency, prosperity and homes, movement and communication, nature and infrastructure.

 

·         39 sites had been identified with 5 site options in Mid Devon

 

·         The timetable for approval of the plan.

 

The Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration then answered the questions posed in public question time:

 

·         With regard to the economic development needs, she was aware that things had moved on with regard to Brexit and the Covid situation, however the consultation responses would be help to bring things up to date

·         With regard to the growth survey, people were asked to think about their local areas and what was important to them and the results informed the draft document. The  consultation process would help understand those views further

·         With regard to the maps, these were separate base maps accounting for the apparent boundary difference

·         With regard to the scoring of the Garden Village in the sustainability appraisal, she would reply to Mr Allan once she had considered the issue

·         With regard to flood risk, a catchment wide approach was being taken as part of the Connecting the Culm project and strategic flood risk assessment would be considered

·         With regard to Cllr Enright’s question – there would be an opportunity as part of the consultation for residents to put forward their views on the issues that he raised.

 

She continued by highlighting the GESP process to date, the decision of the Council in 2016  to enter into the process and the benefits that were agreed. Since that date the climate declaration has been made and this was referred to in the GESP documents.  The housing market areas, travel to work and transport patterns and the cross boundary issues which the strategic plan sought to tackle.  There was also the duty to cooperate need.  She outlined the other advantages of the plan, the need for infrastructure planning, the investment packages available from the Government for highways and railways, the duty to cooperate, the coordinated approach to funding and the need to have a plan at a sub regional scale.

 

Consideration was given to the views of Members

 

·         Exeter had largely unachievable sites with some housing proposals being identified next to industrial estates and the motorway

·         There were sites also unachievable in Teignbridge and this could impact on Mid Devon with the need to make up the balance

·         Concerns about a boundary blind concept and whether we were creating a suburb of Exeter

·         Concerns that East Devon may pull out of the partnership and the impact of this on Mid Devon

·         4 of the 5 option sites for consideration in Mid Devon had large floodplains – when these sites were selected did the Environment Agency have any input?

·         The Exeter student housing did not form part of the 5 years housing allocation figures for Exeter and concerns that Mid Devon were being asked to build more houses than it needs to

·         Concerns with regard to job creation funnelling workers into Exeter and whether economic development should be encouraged in Mid Devon

·         Whether any decision should be put on hold until East Devon had made its decision

·         The need for independence of decision making for local authorities and the need for local democracy

·         The need for the Council to have a view

·         The impact on officer resource if East Devon were to pull out of the partnership

·         The timing of the decision and the need to consider the impact of  Brexit and the pandemic and the knock on effects of these

·         Housing need was not all about supply but the need for homes in the right places – what kind of homes did the communities want

·         The need for realistic assessments of the carbon zero goals set out in the plan

·         The need for affordable housing in the rural areas and that the plan would  develop housing hot spots

·         Concern that the strategic plan was entering  a unitary authority via the back door

·         Housing figures provided by the CPRE which did not match of the GESP and whether we are being asked to solve Exeter’s problems

·         The impact of the proposal at Sampford Peverell and the flooding issues in that area of the village

·         The impact of the site at Hartnoll Farm on the villages of Halberton and Sampford Peverell

·         Concerns about giving delegated authority to agree changes to the documents arising from decisions from other GESP authorities

·         The rail network and the flooding issues in the area

·         Poor maintenance on the district’s cycle paths

·         How much of the 30,000 houses related to a housing need in Mid Devon

·         The Local Plan could become subservient, reduced accountability and control and the need for the Local Plan to be the control document and for the Local Plan to have an early review

·         The impact of the proposed allocations options on the villages of Newton St Cyres, Sampford Peverell and  on Tiverton

 

 

It was therefore suggested that:

 

This Cabinet believes that GESP presents Mid Devon with an unacceptable risk of large scale developments that are not warranted by any formal measure of local housing need.

The Cabinet, therefore, does not approve the recommendations of the Head of Planning in her report on the GESP draft policies and site options.

RECOMMENDED  TO COUNCIL  that: Mid Devon:-

 

(Proposed by Cllr L D Taylor and seconded by Cllr A White)

 

Reason for decision:

 

This Cabinet believes that GESP presents Mid Devon with an unacceptable risk of large scale developments that are not warranted by any formal measure of local housing need.

 

Notes:

 

i)          The Leader requested that his vote against the decision be recorded;

 

ii)         *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.