Agenda item

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

Agreed:

RESOLVED that the Executive notes the latest progress made on the Exeter Plan.

RECOMMENDED that Council grants delegated authority to the Strategic Director for Place, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for City Development, to authorise any proposed modifications that may arise during the Exeter Plan Examination to ensure the Plan is considered sound.

Reason for Decision: As set out in the report.

The Executive received the report which outlined the process for agreeing proposed modifications to the Exeter Plan during the forthcoming examination. The Exeter Plan Examination Hearings would commence in March 2026 and scheduled to conclude by May 2026. The report was seeking Council approval to grant delegated authority to the Strategic Director for Place, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for City Development, to authorise modifications arising during the hearings.

Members were advised that the delegated authority would enable officers and the Portfolio Holder to:

·        meet regularly during the hearings to consider and respond promptly to modifications tabled by the Planning Inspectors;

·        support efficient progress of the plan and reduce the risk of delays to the examination process;

·        all proposed modifications would be subject to further technical assessment and public consultation following the conclusion of the hearings; and

·        any final modifications would require approval by Executive and Council after the Examination, prior to adoption of the Plan.

During the discussion, Executive Members raised the following points and

Questions:

·        clarification was sought on the schedule of proposed modifications, how it was compiled, whether it is an exhaustive list of all third-party representations, and what methodology officers used to determine it;

·        the high level of public reach achieved during the prior consultation was highlighted; and

·        what level of modifications are anticipated during examination and what factors would give rise to further modifications.

The Portfolio Holder for City Development highlighted the need for an efficient process due to the short time span and the importance of the Exeter Plan for the city's development. The plan had already undergone extensive consultation and redrafting and assurance was given that weekly meetings had been arranged with the team to review and discuss modifications as they arise.

In response to questions raised by Executive Members, the Strategic Director for Place advised that:

·        the schedule of proposed modifications listed were put forward informally by officers to assist the planning inspectors in considering evidence and representations from third parties;

·        the modifications did not constitute formal modifications, and only the Inspectors could formally propose modifications during the Examination process;

·        delegated authority was procedural and would apply once modifications were formally proposed by the Inspectors;

·        the delegated authority would allow officers to consider the proposed modifications and undertake any technical assessment and public consultation without suspending the examination or having to seek approval from the executive and council for each modification;

·        the officer suggested modifications were informed by a review of all representations submitted by third parties to the examination;

·        the potential scale of modifications could range from minor terminology changes to more significant changes such as the inclusion or removal of development sites, or amendments to policy wording;

·        the purpose of any modification, whether minor or significant, was to ensure the plan met the tests of soundness and legal requirements, allowing it to be adopted; and

·        failure to introduce necessary modifications, risked the plan not being adoptable.

An opposition group leader raised the following points and questions:

·        welcomed clarification on the status of contributions already submitted to the examination;

·        expressed concern that one proposed amendment appeared to significantly alter the intent of the Plan notably the amendment affecting the status of Ludwell Valley Park and the Valley Parks Masterplan;

·        the change appeared to remove or weaken the requirement to ‘have regard to’ the Masterplan, which was considered to substantially dilute the original wording; and

·        it was enquired whether the Council intended to challenge any such proposed amendments and whether officers planned to accept them as presented to the Examination.

In response to question raised by the opposition Member, the Strategic Director for Place sought clarification on whether the question related to the officer proposed modifications or third-party representations, and received confirmation that the question was from the officer-proposed list.

The Leader advised that the matter was a specific and detailed query, which was not appropriate for a wider debate. He requested that the Opposition Leader email the full detail to the Strategic Director Place outside of the meeting to respond to.

The Deputy Leader & Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services, Community Safety and City Centre requested for future references to report items, that Members include specific reference numbers to help Members locate them within the  large agenda documents. The Leader supported the request.

The Leader moved the recommendations, which were seconded by Councillor

Wright, voted upon, and CARRIED unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Executive notes the latest progress made on the Exeter Plan.

RECOMMENDED that Council grants delegated authority to the Strategic Director for Place, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for City Development, to authorise any proposed modifications that may arise during the Exeter Plan Examination to ensure the Plan is considered sound.