Pleas for a reduction of the additional houses to be built in Ottery over the next 15 years have been ignored. East Devon District Council (EDDC)‘s Development Management Committee considered the content of its Local Plan at a special meeting on 18th November, and rejected my call for lower housing numbers in the town.

The East Devon Local Plan (formerly the ED Local Development Framework Preferred Approach) drew much criticism at its consultation phase in the Autumn of 2010. There was considerable objection to the number of houses and the amount of employment land planned, as well as concern about watered-down landscape protection policies. Over the last 4 months the EDDC Local Development Framework Panel (which included Ottery Rural District Councillor Claire Wright) has been considering representations from the public, bodies such as the RSPB and the National Trust, and Town and Parish Councils. Many of the consultees who had objected in 2010, continue to have reservations. Unfortunately Claire Wright has often found herself outvoted by the Conservative majority on the LDF Panel on key issues.
Gazette readers will want to know what is planned for Ottery.
The agenda papers for 18th November showed Ottery as receiving 465 new dwellings up to 2026 (this includes 65 built or committed, so the new total would be 400). This would be growing Ottery by a fifth. EDDC strategic planner Matt Dickins opened the debate about Ottery saying that there should be a strategic allocation of 350 houses to the west of Ottery, plus an additional 50. He said the housing allocation would meet the aspirations of The Kings School for improved facilities, and would be served by a High Quality Public Transport Service to link Ottery and Exeter via Cranbrook.
I was invited to address the Development Management Committee by its Chairman Cllr Mark Williamson. That was an encouraging development, as LDF Panel Chairman Cllr Mike Allen had barred me from speaking at the final LDF Panel meeting on 1 November. Cllr David Cox had not been present on 1st November, so Ottery was denied a voice (Cllr Allen is attending the OSMTC meeting at 7pm on Monday 5 December and will no doubt explain why he did not allow me to speak on behalf of Ottery, and also why he cut short Mayor Glyn Dobson‘s address about Ottery at an earlier meeting).
I drew the Committee’s attention to page 80 of their agenda papers where it said: “The Preferred Approach envisaged about 250 dwellings for Ottery St Mary” and “The Town Council considered the figure too high”. However it was now planned that there would be 400 additional dwellings for Ottery. I said that the LDF Panel Chairman had previously said that the communities of East Devon would get a housing allocation that was broadly in line with what the community
wanted. There had been extensive communication in Ottery and there was a very clear and strong view that the number of houses proposed was too high.
I told the EDDC Development Management Committee on 18 November that the EDDC officers had justified the high number of houses proposed for Ottery on two grounds – the proximity of Ottery to the East Devon West End (the area around Cranbrook and the Science Park, where there is to be considerable development); and also because Ottery would benefit from a High Quality Public Transport Service to link Ottery and Exeter via Cranbrook – the claim made a few moments ago by Matt Dickins. I said that Ottery was not in proximity to the West End. I referred to the Blue Cedar Planning Appeal Decision for development in West Hill which had been received on 15th November. The Inspector had dismissed the Appeal saying that West Hill should not be included in the part of East Devon to receive high levels of development. Ottery was even further from the West End than West Hill.
I then turned to the High Quality Public Transport Service – a kind of modern tram service. I read out a letter from David Black of Devon County Council to Kate Little, Head of Planning at EDDC, dated 31 October 2011 which included: “Following the comprehensive spending review and changes to the major scheme bid process, the county council will no longer be pursuing a £60m high quality public transport system. Theabove references to ‘high quality public transport‘ should therefore be removed from the Local Plan as they are neither planned nor proposed for extension to Ottery St. Mary.”
So both justifications for a high level of housebuilding in Ottery were not valid (an improved frequency bus service is planned which will be very welcome
– but more 60 and 380 buses is not ‘high quality public transport‘).
The Chairman, Cllr Mark Williamson, said: “I thought that Roger Giles made some good points there”. Which was very encouraging for Ottery. Cllr Mike Allen replied: “Because of the narrow vote, I have arranged to meet OSMTC, and amazingly find myself agreeing with Roger Giles”. Of course he might have found
himself agreeing with me on 1 November, had he allowed me to speak. Newton Poppleford Councillor Ken Potter (former proprietor of Potters Country Market in
West Hill) expressed concern about the impact on the traffic situation in Ottery saying there is already ‘gridlock‘ in the centre.
At this point it seemed that there was a very good chance that the Ottery housing numbers would be scaled back. Unfortunately Cllr David Key then said that “we gave this a very good airing at the LDF Panel”. Perhaps Cllr Key’s memory is playing tricks on him, because Ottery was discussed at the LDF Panel for a mere 15 minutes; Exmouth was discussed for 4 hours 12 minutes. Cllr Key then claimed that it was better to go for more houses than fewer, because if 300 were agreed and Ottery changed its mind and wanted more it would be difficult to get them. One wonders what examples Cllr Key could give to justify that statement.
Cllr Ray Bloxham said that he had been a member of OSMTC for 4 years. He said that there had always been aspirations for better infrastructure in Ottery. He referred to the need to improve The Kings School, and desires to see a new library provided as well as hopes for a museum and other facilities. A reduced number of houses would prejudice the prospects of providing those services. The hopes for a reduced housing allocation for Ottery disappeared at that point.  The Chairman said “there will be a lot of discussion about housing numbers in Ottery in the next 8 weeks or so”. The Committee then moved on to discuss Seaton, without even a vote on Ottery. At the end of the meeting on 18 November the Committee agreed to send the document out for a further round of public consultations commencing on 1st December until the end of January. Of course Ottery people – and other East Devon residents – will be able to make their views known. I strongly urge local people to do so. The concern is that developers (and we know of four who are actively working on housing proposals to the west, to the north, to the east, and to the south of Ottery) will claim that the high level of housing numbers agreed on 18 November justify their proposal.
It would not be at all surprising if some of those proposals become planning applications before the consultation period has ended.
ROGER GILES
East Devon District Councillor,
Ottery Town.