Exmou20 - No win situation?

Residents are rightly upset and confused as to why houses need to be built in fields.

Councillors asked questions, residents have protested and meetings held.

We've been caught in set of circumstances which have combined to mean that, regardless of what happens with the new local plan, we can't win. If we plan to build the houses, we have lost; if we don't plan to build them, the control we have to decide our planning decisions in future is greatly reduced, handing it, effectively to developers. If we change the proposed local plan at this stage, the government say that we've made a significant change to our plan, and therefore we must start again, this time under new rules with higher housing targets.

Having attended the Save Exmou20 last week, I understand and agree with every point they make. If they fight, though, and potentially win their battle, as I've said, we lose control over our housing numbers, developers can make an application for the Exmou20 site anyway. Chances are it'll be granted, because EDDC have to operate under what's called a Tilted Balance - basically, it's a carte blanche for developers to build what they want and where they want.

This is the fault of the last two governments - we'reoperating under the Tory housing number allocation. If we have to start again, we move to new Labour arrangements which are even worse.

Please understand, no councillor, Lib Dem, Green or Independent wants to build a single house in a field. And yet here we are. We can't win.

Below is an AI generated summary of a couple long but useful information sessions we had for Democratic Alliance Councillors. It's lemgthy, but it was this that led me to understand the situation.

Why East Devon Cannot Change Its Housing Numbers at This Stage of the Local Plan

1. Introduction

East Devon District Council is in the final stages of preparing its new Local Plan — the document that determines where new homes, jobs, infrastructure and environmental protections will be located for the next 15–20 years.

Recent public debate has focused on whether the Council can reduce its housing numbers or remove major development sites, including in Exmouth. This report explains why such changes are not legally or practically possible at this stage without severe consequences for the district.

2. National Changes to Planning Policy

In late 2024, the new UK Government introduced a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

A key part of this revision was a new version of the “standard method” — the formula used to calculate how many homes each local authority is expected to plan for.

Old vs New Housing Numbers

• Under the previous Conservative government’s method, East Devon’s housing need was around 900–950 homes per year.

• Under the new Labour government’s method (December 2024), this increased to 1,188 homes per year.

This represents roughly a 25% increase in the number of homes the district would be required to plan for.

3. Transitional Arrangements: A Temporary Lifeline

Recognising that many councils were already deep into the plan‑making process, the government introduced transitional arrangements. These allow councils to continue using the older, lower housing numbers if they meet strict conditions.

East Devon met these conditions

East Devon qualified because:

1. Housing numbers were at least 80% of the new requirement.

   1. East Devon’s figure just met this threshold at the time and still does.

   2. The plan had reached key stages (Regulation 18 and Regulation 19) by set deadlines.

      • East Devon completed Regulation 18 earlier.

      • The Council also completed Regulation 19A and 19B consultations in time.

This means East Devon is currently allowed to continue its Local Plan under the December 2023 NPPF, avoiding the much higher housing numbers.

4. The Critical Rule: No Significant Changes Allowed Now

The government added an important condition:

When the Local Plan is submitted for examination, it must not “significantly differ” from the version consulted on at Regulation 19.

If it does, the Planning Inspectorate will rule that the plan does not qualify under the transitional arrangements.

What counts as a “significant change”?

• Removing major strategic sites

• Changing the overall housing numbers

• Altering the spatial strategy in a fundamental way

• Removing large allocations in key settlements (e.g., Exmouth)

Removing a major site such as EXM20 would unquestionably be considered a significant change.

5. What Happens If the Plan Is Forced to Restart?

If East Devon loses its transitional status, the consequences are severe:

1. The district must use the new higher housing number (1,188 homes/year).

This means thousands more homes must be allocated across the district.

2. The Local Plan process restarts from the beginning.

This would add years of delay, repeating consultations, site assessments, and evidence gathering.

3. East Devon would lose its 5‑year housing land supply.

Without a 5‑year supply, the district becomes vulnerable to the “tilted balance”, a planning rule that:

• Makes it far easier for developers to win planning appeals

• Reduces the Council’s ability to secure:

  • affordable housing

  • infrastructure contributions

  • good design

  • environmental protections

  • Leads to speculative development across the district

This situation could last for several years until a new plan is adopted.

6. Impact on Exmouth and Sites Like EXM20

Some campaign groups have argued that removing EXM20 from the plan would protect Exmouth from development.

However, the planning rules mean the opposite is true.

If EXM20 is removed now:

• The plan would be judged to have changed significantly

• The transitional arrangements would be lost

• East Devon would be forced to plan for thousands more homes

• Pressure for large sites — including EXM20 — would increase, not decrease

Additional Considerations:

Why the housing numbers in East Devon’s Local Plan can’t simply be reduced

It’s understandable that people ask whether improving affordability means we should reduce housing numbers. However, the Local Plan doesn’t work like a simple target you can adjust up or down late in the process.

1. The whole plan is built on the housing number

The housing requirement isn’t just one policy—it underpins the entire plan.

Change the number and you change:

• which sites are allocated

• how infrastructure is planned

• the spatial strategy (where development goes)

In planning terms, that would be a fundamental rewrite, not a minor tweak. At this stage, that would mean going back significantly—potentially delaying or derailing the plan.

2. The headline figure isn’t just “new homes to allocate”

The often‑quoted total (around 20,000 homes) includes several elements:

• homes already built during the plan period

• homes with existing planning permission

• expected “windfall” sites (small unplanned developments that reliably come forward)

• and only then, the new sites we allocate

So when people talk about “taking 1,000 homes out”, it’s not that simple. Much of the total is already committed or delivered.

3. The numbers change over time anyway

As more homes are built or permissions granted, the balance shifts:

• fewer homes may need allocating later

• but equally, delivery assumptions and evidence can change

This means you can’t treat the figure as a fixed pot with spare “headroom” to remove.

4. The plan must still meet legal requirements at adoption

By law, the plan must show 15 years’ worth of deliverable housing at the point it’s adopted.

Because adoption has slipped, the plan period may effectively shorten—making it harder, not easier, to demonstrate a full supply.

Maintaining a buffer of sites is therefore essential to:

• ensure the plan passes inspection

• avoid being found unsound

• prevent having to start again