Skip to main content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Phoenix Chamber, Phoenix House, Tiverton

Contact: Carole Oliphant  Member Services Officer

Link: audio recording

Items
No. Item

31.

APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS (00-04-10)

To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute.

 

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Cllr D J Knowles who was substituted by Cllr R J Dolley.

32.

HYBRID MEETING PROTOCOL (00-04-26) pdf icon PDF 322 KB

Members to note the Hybrid Meetings Protcol.

Minutes:

The protocol for hybrid meetings was noted.

33.

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (00-04-53)

To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

 

Note:   A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

 

Minutes:

Referring to item one on the Plans List Tidcombe Hall, Barbara Downs asked………what are the councillors doing to redress the very real risk of flooding that increased rain fall and the building of 179 new dwellings will pose. This major concern should cause this application to be rejected. The area around the canal is vulnerable to flooding as has been seen in recent times.

 

The pictures in front of you should show severe and prolonged damage caused by the collapse of the canal bed when heavy rainfall and raging torrents led to the canal bursting its banks on 22nd November 2012 with water falls cascading into nearby fields. Devon County Council said the sheer volume of rain water meant the breach could not be avoided. The Canal did not re-open until the 19th March 2014 costing in excess of £1m. This was not an isolated incident, in November last year, heavy rainfall caused above ankle deep flooding, down Newts Hill, Tidcombe Lane and Lime Tree Mead. The three pictures show you water and debris everywhere

 

And as recently as last month the water reached dangerously high levels. Building 179 dwellings, with much of the field disappearing under concrete, the water will find its way down into the canal, a huge concern. With climate change, rainfall has increased 100% over the last 12 months and flooding is a real worry to residents whose properties back onto the canal. Insurance premiums would significantly increase. Many bungalows whose back gardens adjoin the towpath have been and are up for sale. New owners might struggle to get insured as not all underwriters insure property where there has been flooding. For underwriters who would insure, the cost would be much higher. The vendors could be in a position where they cannot sell their property because the buyer cannot get insurance.

 

LVA cannot give complete re-assurance because they cannot control climate change. If another flood occurs up this end of the canal it could put Mr Brind with the horse drawn barge out of business.

 

Everything is wrong about this application. Closure of Tidcombe Bridge, which has been in use to traffic for over a century, and alternative rabbit warren routes clogging up other residential areas and diverting traffic down The Avenue makes me wonder if LVA have ever tried to get on to Canal Hill from The Avenue? It’s very dangerous now. With extra traffic it’s an accident waiting to happen.

 

All of this just for some greedy developer to ruin our canal and countryside. For all these reasons I recommend the Council to reject this proposal. Thank you.

 

David Randell speaking in relation to the same application stated…..my point relates to the comment ‘ultra low carbon homes’….is the committee aware that the applicant’s claim is based on Government guidance for standards proposed to be reached by 2010 and not the Government proposed target with the legislation delayed by the pandemic that by 2020 all new housing should achieve code level 6? This Council has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

34.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT (00-45-02)

Councillors are reminded of the requirement to declare any interest, including the type of interest, and reason for that interest at each item.

 

Minutes:

Members were reminded of the need to declare any interests when appropriate.

 

 

35.

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING (00-45-17) pdf icon PDF 266 KB

Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 16th June 2021.

 

Minutes to follow.

 

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2021 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

36.

CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-46-48)

         To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make. 

 

Minutes:

The Chairman had the following announcements to make:

 

·         Consideration of the items after No 1 on the Plans List would not be discussed until after 4pm

·         A special meeting of the Planning Committee would take place on 28 July 2021

·         Kathryn Tebbey (Head of Legal and Monitoring Officer) would be leaving the authority at the end of the week and the Chairman thanked her for all her hard work in supporting the committee (and members generally) and wished her well for the future.

37.

DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (00-46-48)

To report any items appearing in the  Plans List which have been deferred.           

 

Minutes:

There were no deferrals from the Plans List.

38.

THE PLANS LIST (00-49-09) pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered the applications in the *Plans List.

 

Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes.

 

 

a)    Application 20/01174/MOUT – (Outline for the erection of up to 179 dwellings, including the conversion of Tidcombe Hall and outbuildings to 12 dwellings, a shop, café, an open sided shelter, community allotments, community orchards, public open space, associated infrastructure and access with all other matters reserved)  - Tidcombe Hall, Tidcombe Lane, Tiverton

 

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan, the proposed site area and the area outlined in Policy TIV13 (the contingency site within the Local Plan) for 100 dwellings on 8.4ha, an aerial photograph of the site, an illustrative indicative masterplan of the proposal which included the area of green infrastructure, the proposed access and pedestrian and emergency access.  Individual plans were also shown of the access points and photographs were supplied indicating the main access to Tidcombe Hall, the location of the proposed access, views from Tidcombe Bridge looking into the proposed access, Tidcombe Hall itself and the outbuildings, the 2nd access point from Warnicombe Lane, views down the lane and from various locations looking into the site.

 

The officer then outlined her recommendation for refusal and highlighted the 4 additional letters of representation and the response from the applicant as shown on the update sheet.

 

Referring to the questions raised in Public Question Time – with regard to the flooding issues, the Lead Local Flood Authority had confirmed that the discharge from the site could be managed appropriately to prevent increased flood risk elsewhere and that the detailed drainage scheme could be managed by conditions; the low carbon element proposed a 75% improvement upon current Building Regulations; the vehicle charging points were in line with policy DM5 (1 charging point per 10 dwellings) and could be controlled by condition;.  With regard to the highway issues, these had been surveyed and modelled and included a safety audit, Highways had felt that the proposal was acceptable; the 4 schools had not been consulted, but one had commented.  With regard to the number of letters of objection received, 412 letters had been received from 293 different contributors.  With regard to the issues raised by the CPRE, the Local Planning Authority had to consider all applications that it received – it could not choose which applications to determine.

 

The following questions were posed by members of the committee:

 

·         Issues with regard to the Environmental Impact Assessment and the process which involved the Secretary of State and the pre application process which had been covered by the applicant providing a technical note.

·         The proposed closure of Tidcombe Bridge and the fact that the Highway Authority would have to close it by way of a Traffic Regulation Order

·         Human ashes were scattered on the site (when the hall was a hospice), had there been a designated area on the site which had been recorded – the case officer was unaware of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.