Controversial mega site for 700 Exmouth homes approved

Residents 'gutted'

Exmothians have expressed their dismay as planners approved a controversial site that had around 1,100 objections against it.

The move means that land at St John’s in Exmouth, near the internationally significant Pebblebed Heaths and Grade II* listed St John in the Wilderness Church, will be able to accommodate around 700 homes.

Besides huge opposition from residents, environmental groups such as Devon Wildlife Trust, the RSPB and Natural England all had concerns, as did the Environment Agency and Historic England.

Some councillors who represent Exmouth were equally puzzled about the proposal to allocate the site, with Cllr Brian Bailey (Conservative, Exmouth Littleham) stating there was “no way on God’s earth the site is sustainable”, and Cllr Nick Hookway (Liberal Democrat, Exmouth Littleham) outlining “very real concerns” about access to the site “due to the proximity to the Pebblebed Heaths and the impact on wildlife”.

Only two residents were allowed to speak in relation to each site, which was criticised by some councillors as well as some members of the public.

Resident John Hamill expressed dismay at the decision to approve the St John’s site. The decision means development of the land is deemed acceptable but is not the approval of a specific scheme.

“To say it is disappointing is an understatement,” Mr Hamill said.

“We’ve made the case for over a year to each councillor to look at the environmental, historical, and people impacts of the proposals and feel nobody has listened.”

He added that he felt the strategic planning committee, which has been tasked with identifying sites across East Devon that can collectively accommodate nearly 21,000 homes between now and 2042, had been “driven by fear of government quotas rather than what’s right for the residents”.

This criticism relates to the fact that East Devon has been allowed to produce its emerging local plan under so-called ‘transitional arrangements’, which means it is allowed to target a lower number of homes over the life of the plan.

The committee has been frequently reminded that a “significant change” to the plan could derail the process of adopting it in time, which could risk the district having to find more than 26,000 homes over the life of the plan.

That would be additional 5,227 homes, meaning the council would need to find locations for 1,188 per year out to 2042 rather than the lower 950 annually it is aiming for.

Mr Hamill added that he lived close to where the access road from the St John’s site was being proposed, which would emerge onto the B3179 near a tight S-bend at Outer Ting Tong.

“Since June, there have been five significant accidents there, one of which required the air ambulance,” he said.

“The road won’t take it, and councillors know that yet don’t seem to have the confidence to say that we need to stop this. That road will end up killing people.”

Resident Nigel Humphrey said he was “gutted”.

“I can understand all of their arguments with regards to the government pushing the housing targets, but it comes down to the site itself, which is not suitable, sustainable or viable, and they know it, but are saying they risk having to find even more houses across the district if they don’t put it in,” he said.

He also had concerns about how the site would be accessed, and questioned whether the site could be cohesively developed given significant parts of it will have to be left alone due to their proximity to St John in the Wilderness Church, plus the fact part of the site lies within a buffer zone that discourages development due to the proximity to the Pebblebed Heaths.

And there’s an added complication in that this buffer zone is echoed by a mineral consultation area – essentially meaning it is land which Devon County Council believes could have valuable mineral deposits.

Planning officer Ed Freeman stated the only part of any potential development that would be within the buffer zone would be an access road, which he said highways experts had no issue with.

While there were suggestions about allocating part of the site, and potentially accessing it from a different location, it was Exmouth Green Party councillor, Olly Davey (Exmouth Town), who said that “with a heavy heart I propose to accept the officers’ recommendations”.

“It’s really obvious there aren’t many alternatives,” he said.

“I think the lack of alternative sites, and the fact nobody else wants our allocation in terms of the number of homes, means it has to be accepted,” he said.

He added that planning applications for the site would still have to be subject to the usual process, and so would be scrutinised by the council’s planning committee, which decides the fate of individual schemes rather than considering district-wide development proposals like the strategic planning committee does. 

Cllr Bailey, who sits on the strategic planning committee, added that he felt some of his fellow committee were “bending over backwards to make it work”.

“I don’t see why as there’s a limit to what you can and can’t do,” he said.

“We should be looking after people, and this site had 1,100 complaints, which is a significant amount, so I’m at a loss to understand why we’re doing this.”

However, Councilor Todd Olive (Liberal Democrat, Whimple and Rockbeare), who chairs the strategic planning committee, reminded members that officers had initially not recommended it, noting that it had eventually been included because of the potential benefits a larger site can bring.

“By concentrating development in one place, you can achieve the necessary funds to put infrastructure in place,” he said.

“It’s the very same rationale in terms of pursuing a second new community; by concentrating development you get a better outcome, and I don’t think splitting the 700 homes on the St John’s site across lots of others would achieve a better outcome.”

Nine members of the committee voted for the Exmouth allocations, with one voting against and two abstaining.

Speaking after the meeting, Cllr Olive told the Local Democracy Reporting Service, that it might seem “counterintuitive” to go against the concerns of organisations that were consulted, but queried whether many appreciated that only part of the site would be developed.

“I have a strong suspicion that they object to the site as a whole, and if we were proposing to build on the whole site, I’d agree it would be inappropriate,” he said.

“But as one member noted, there are pressures not only to deliver against national government housing numbers, but a moral imperative to deliver housing for young people in East Devon; we have a duty to deliver housing and ameliorate the lack of availability and affordability.”