To receive questions from members of the public and responses thereto.
Details of questions should be notified to the Democratic Services by 10am at least three working days prior to the meeting. For this meeting, by 10am on Thursday 26 February 2026.
Further information about speaking at a committee can be found here: Speaking at a Committee or by making contact with Democratic Service via email or 01392 265425.
Minutes:
The Lord Mayor advised that two questions from Members of the public had been received.
Question from Mrs Jane Smith:
Post meeting (1/12/2025) a planning officer admitted she had not read the 36 objections but would “have a look”. Vital information was ignored, a significant impact on the outcome. No mention of environment impact (normally included), in spite of e-mail to environment enforcement officer in September. How was vital information ignored and how could residents ensure their concerns were properly heard and considered within the planning process?
The Portfolio Holder for City Development acknowledged the resident’s concerns and apologised that she felt her views had not been heard. However, it was confirmed that all 36 objections submitted in relation to the application were read, assessed and analysed by the planning team prior to the committee meeting, and were considered by Members as part of the published committee report.
It was clarified that no officer had stated that objections had not been read. It was further advised that environmental and ecological matters were fully addressed within the committee report, including impact assessments, habitat and species considerations, biodiversity net gain requirements and associated management plans.
With regard to the reported site works, it was confirmed that this matter was being dealt with separately through the Council’s enforcement process and remained under investigation. Officers were satisfied that the issues raised did not alter the recommendation or the Planning Committee’s decision, which was taken with reference to the full report and all relevant information. She invited Mrs Smith to make further contact for updates if required.
In a supplementary question Mrs Smith acknowledged the response but maintained concerns regarding the accuracy of the developer’s environmental surveys. She stated that she held filmed evidence of wildlife activity within the hedgerows and field which, in her view, contradicted the submitted environmental assessments, and indicated she was willing to share this information.
The Portfolio Holder for City Development responded that she would be happy to receive and review the additional evidence. They expressed confidence that the planning team had presented all relevant information to the Committee but acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding a lack of response to previous communications and invited her to forward the information directly.
Question from Mr Kris Christmann:
Why has Exeter City Council (as the principal duty holder for Rougemont Gardens, a Grade II listed historic park) tolerated long-term homeless encampments with tents, open defecation, and associated graffiti damage to the city walls for months—despite available powers under park byelaws, civil remedies, and (previously) Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824—rather than enforcing removal and restoration, or has the park been redesignated as a campsite?
The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Homelessness Prevention and Customer Services responded that the City Council’s housing team regularly visited encampments across the city to offer support and assist individuals into suitable housing. Where antisocial behaviour occurred, notices to leave were issued under the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; however, such notices must be served to an individual, which can be challenging in some cases.
The encampment at Rougemont Gardens had now been cleared, with rubbish and tents removed, and any remaining damage being addressed by the relevant services.
In February 2026, the Council’s Customer Focus Scrutiny Committee received a report and presentation on homelessness. The housing team was working towards ending homelessness in the city, with a focus on prevention, particularly for care leavers and single homeless individuals. The Council aimed to develop a proactive, integrated, and trauma-informed homelessness and housing needs service to support those in need.
Kris Christmann commented that while it was positive that the encampment had now been removed, the process had taken around six months and expressed concern about the length of time taken. They noted this was not viewed as an issue of homelessness, as the individuals were voluntarily homeless, and emphasised the need for more timely action by the Council.
The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Homelessness Prevention and Customer Services acknowledged the concerns, apologised for the delays, and provided assurance that the Council addressed such issues as quickly as possible, while recognising the frustration caused by the time it can take.