‘Unusual’ step being taken to explain controversial 130 homes decision in East Devon town

A controversial decision to allow up to 130 homes to be built in an East Devon town will be explained by planners in an “unusual” move.

The scheme by housebuilder Baker Estates for up to 130 homes in Seaton was the subject of a split vote when it was debated, until the chair of East Devon District Council’s planning committee changed his mind.
Councillor Olly Davey (Green, Exmouth Town) initially voted against the plans at a February planning meeting.
He highlighted concerns about the erosion of the so-called green wedge, which is open land that separates two conurbations, the loss of high-quality agricultural land, and the fact only 25 per cent of the homes are proposed to be affordable.
But after planning officers queried the strength of his objections, Cllr Davey then opted to support the proposal.
The switch in vote, which caused surprise among those attending, including committee members, meant the development was passed by seven votes to five.
But just days later the council acknowledged the decision was under review.
Now, planners have taken the unusual step of allocating time at this week’s planning meeting (Tuesday 13 May) to explain the decision.
A report ahead of the meeting states that concerns had been raised “regarding the legality of the decision-making both in terms of the advice given and the decision”.
“There is clear case law which confirms that unless there is some distinct and material defect in the officer’s advice, the court will not interfere,” the report states.
“Officers are satisfied that there was no distinct or material defect in the advice in this case.”
The concerns that had been raised related to the officer advice and the extent to which planning officers can direct the committee, but the council’s report states it is “established case law that it is the role of the planning officer to set out their professional opinion in such circumstances, provided that they do not misdirect members”.
“In this case, officers are satisfied that members were not misdirected and indeed officers could have gone further in explaining why they considered there were not sufficient grounds to refuse the application,” the report adds.
The council said the decision was “lawfully conducted” albeit acknowledged “confusion for some onlookers”.
“Following the conducting of a review of this matter, the council is taking the unusual step to bring this matter back to the committee for the chair to clarify the exercise of his casting vote,” the report states.
“The reason for taking this step is because the council wishes to be open and transparent and to ensure that there is no uncertainty with the decision-making process.”
The move means that the scheme, which is at the outline planning stage, can now move forward towards full planning permission.
That will include more precise details, such as the exact number of homes, their locations within the site, and their design.
Planners could still refuse the full planning application if they believe it contravenes any of the council’s planning policies.