Venue: Phoenix Chambers, Phoenix House, Tiverton
Contact: Sally Gabriel Member Services Officer
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute.
There were no apologies for absence.
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (00-04-23)
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.
1. Mr Elstone referring to number 1 on the agenda stated:
The MDDC Adopted Masterplan SPD Document Section 1.7 Design Process
“MDDC will expect landowners and developers to follow the prescribed design process which is adopted as an integral part of this SPD”.
The words, stipulate, command, impose are all synonyms of the word prescribed, I am therefore at a total loss to understand why anyone could not understand then follow this very clear requirement.
Can it be fully explained why Redrow Homes were allowed to ignore the prescribed requirement at the UD &AP stage. This to consult with the Public and Stakeholders and hold a workshop in order to formulate the UD&AP proposals before progressing to the Reserved Matters Stage.
Can it be fully explained why Redrow Homes were allowed to ignore the prescribed requirement at the UD &AP stage to engage with the Design Review Panel this to discuss and formulate the UD&AP proposals before progressing to the Reserved Matters Stage.
Why were Redrow Homes allowed to arbitrarily create 6 new character areas without any form of consultation this with stakeholders or even Ward Councillors. In creating these artificial areas, they have totally destroyed the full intent and key principles of the Tiverton EUE Masterplan SPD Design Guide.
They have placed the highest density housing areas where it should be amongst if not the lowest in this phase of the development. They have placed the lowest density housing their show homes against the Spur Road which should be the highest. They have defeated the Centre to Edge, Key and Guiding Principle.
What efforts did the MDDC Officers make to have Redrow Homes comply with the prescribed Planning Design Process. I understand that MDDC Officers attempted to get Redrow Homes to engage with the Design Review Panel before submitting the Reserved Matters Application, but they would not comply. Can this be confirmed.
Why have the Planning Officers never flagged up to Planning Committee Members how critical the Design Review Panel were of being introduced late (too late) into the Design Process.
Also, how the Review Panel felt constrained in making recommendations as a result.
Why were Redrow Homes allowed to fail to comply with their own UD&AP submission that said they would engage with the Design Review Panel before they submitted their Reserved Matters Application.
Why did Redrow Homes fail totally to follow their own Community Engagement Policies as defined in Redrow 8 Placement Key Principles Document, Principle 1 Listen to Learn -Community Engagement.
2. Mr Langford referring to number 4 on the plans list stated:
The lengthy report has been produced when the officer and department are under pressure to clear applications. Perhaps as a result, there are basic errors of fact presented to you. They are of fundamental importance to your decision making today.
I have the following question, in three parts, on one aspect - the need for ... view the full minutes text for item 112.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT (00-44-32)
Councillors are reminded of the requirement to declare any interest, including the type of interest, and reason for that interest at each item.
Members were reminded of the need to make declarations where appropriate.
Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 6th October 2021.
The minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2021 were agreed as a true record and duly SIGNED by the Chairman.
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-46-09)
To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
The Chairman welcomed Richard Marsh (Director of Place) to the meeting.
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (00-46-58)
To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.
There were no deferrals from the Plans List.
To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
The Committee considered the applications on the *Plans List
Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes
Applications dealt with without debate.
In accordance with its agreed procedure the Committee identified those applications contained in the Plans List which could be dealt with without debate.
RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:
a) Application 20/01764/TPO –application to reduce height and canopy spread on north side by 2m of 1 beech tree (T1) and fell 2 ash trees (T2 and T3) protected by Tree Preservation Order 80/00001/TPO – land at NGR 294817 112951 (South of 45 Derick Road) Patches Road, Tiverton be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Reason for the decision: As set out in the report
b) Application 21/00454/MARM – Reserved Matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for 164 dwellings with the provision of public open space, vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping, drainage and related infrastructure and engineering works following outline approval 14/00881/MOUT – land east of Tiverton, South of A361 and both north and south of Blundells Road, Uplowman Road, Tiverton)
The Area Planning Officer provided responses to questions raised in public question time, covering the general issues as follows:
· With regard to non-compliance with the application process and more specifically why the Design Review Panel had not been involved at an earlier stage, the officers were unaware of any non-compliance to the statutory application process, the report of 28 July 2021 provided a reference to the NPPF that encouraged the Design Review Panel (DRP) process and the applicant was informed, she acknowledged that there was a delay in the DRP being involved but that the application had been considered by the DRP.
· With regard to the ‘Centre to Edge’ concept established in the Tiverton EUE Design Guide which made reference to a row of houses adjacent to the green boulevard – this were possibly those mentioned in figure 3.39 of the design guide that focused on the residential core or those highlighted within the illustrative masterplan submitted at outline stage. The adopted masterplan set out a strategic vision for the EUE and was intended to be flexible. The masterplan submitted with the 2014 outline application was an illustrative framework plan setting out how the development might be achieved.
· With regard to the inclusion of green policies – this was referred to in the update sheet
· With regard to cycle paths, again she referred to the update sheet and confirmed that cycle paths were provided and had not been removed.
· With regard to the access via the farm gate entrance on the north side of Blundells Road, she would need to clarify this with the questioner as the access would currently be off the A361 junction for construction works.
· With regard to the self build dwellings being serviced from the north, the officer’s report stated that the proposed scheme would not preclude ... view the full minutes text for item 117.
List attached for consideration of major applications and potential site visits.
The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a *list of major applications with no decision
It was AGREED that: application 21/02014/MARM – land north of Putson Road Cottages, Blundells Road, Tiverton be brought before the Committee for determination and that a site visit take place.
Note: *list previously circulated and attached to the minutes.
To receive the planning performance report from the Interim Development Management Manager.
The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a *report of the Interim Development Management Manager which outlined the performance aspects of the planning function.
The officer explained the statistics and informed the meetings that the planning team were doing very well, she highlighted the speed and quality of decision-making, the current staffing issues; the work of the enforcement and building control teams and that the authority was joint second in comparison to those other authorities in the south west.
Members recorded their congratulations for the work that was taking place.
Note: *Report previously circulated and attached to the minutes