In a post on this blog on 21 Feb it was mentioned that at the public hearing into the local plan the EDDC Planning Officer read out paragraph 1 of the NPPF to the Planning Inspector. This is all about encouraging communities to get involved in the planning process. The Planning Officer then went on to say that communities were the best judge of where developments should go.

As part of complying with the Local plan, due process of consultation had been followed in East Budleigh with regard to choosing one of three sites all of which had been identified by EDDC in consultation with land owners as suitable. The people overwhelmingly preferred a brown field site at the village entry to the South by a majority of 68.5% (site C307). However in the published plan, EDDC introduced a series of spurious arguments to reject this site despite it being previously deemed suitable, and chose instead site C059 a field of agricultural Grade 1 land below Syon House; on the “wrong” side of the main road, with a site entry at a known accident black spot; and a site with known flooding issues. This site had been favoured by only 29.7% of the community.

We can now, perhaps, begin to understand why EDDC did this.

Last week Leigh Rix, Head of Property and Land at Clinton Devon Estates (CDE), attended the annual parish meeting at East Budleigh and attempted to explain why the field below Syon House was the site CDE would now be putting forward. CDE offered all three of the suitable sites in the original consultation so do we surmise that the decision to reject the brownfield site and ignore local opinion lies at their door rather than EDDC’s?

By all accounts Leigh Rix failed to present a convincing case. The meeting was curtailed before all had spoken and there is a rising sense of anger in the community that the consultation process has been a sham.

Why should CDE prefer to sacrifice grade 1 agricultural land in an AONB before a brownfield site? Why should EDDC planners go along with this bearing in mind what the NPPF says?
NPPF paragraph 111 says “planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land).”

NPPF paragraph 112 says “Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poor quality land in preference to that of higher quality”

It is also instructive to look at CDE website to get a measure of their mission statement. It reads:

Doing our part for our part of the world. Clinton Devon Estates is a 21st century rural estate and property business. Responsible stewardship and sustainable development are at the heart of everything we do. Our mission is: “to secure the long term prosperity of the Estates and the people who live and work on them in ways which care for the countryside and engage with the wider community”

Ostensibly this application is for 15 houses but we fear that in order to satisfy the Inspector villages such as East Budleigh will have to take many more houses than this.

So does site C059 offer more opportunities for expansion?

Also, is CDE grabbing the opportunity that the current relaxed planning regime offers to gain planning permission for grade 1 agricultural land knowing it can always get a second bite at the cherry by offering a brownfield site at a later stage?