Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies.

Cllr F J Rosamond (Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee and Ward Member for Upper Culm) had requested that his apologies for the meeting be noted.

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

Given the level of interest in the meeting it has been decided that the available space for public attendance/viewing will be split into two halves, allowing proponents of each side of the debate equal accommodation and space within the room.

Furthermore, in order to ensure that public interest in the meeting can be met, the Chairman has agreed to the waiving of the standard 30 minute limit on public questions. Public questions will be heard beyond the 30 minute agenda item providing that such questions are raising new points for the council’s response. The Chairman will reserve the right to close public question time if becomes clear that such questions are proving repetitious.

Mrs Webber referring to Item 4 on the agenda stated that – I am the owner of Jo Amor which is an independent shop on Bampton Street.  I’d like to take this opportunity to speak and to raise concerns over the leisure and retail development at Junction 27.  My main concern relates to the over 1071sq of designer outlet village. That is equivalent to approximately 80 of my shops, which I consider will have a negative impact on my business and Tiverton town centre as a whole.  I have run my business in the town for over 20 years and I have worked really hard to create a shopping experience that is unique and adds to the draw of the town. I am proud and passionate about what we have achieved. Over the years we have gradually expanded from just woman’s wear into men’s wear, gifts and now a café. I feel that it really adds to the vibrancy and variety along Bampton Street. I also employ a number of local people who are part of the business success and keeping it local.  In recent years all the businesses in the town have worked hard to ensure the town’s long term success.  This has been helped by successfully winning the Portas bid and the more recent introduction of Electric Nights Street Food in the council owned Pannier Market. However, we constantly have to work really hard to compete with online sales and the continued draw of Exeter and Taunton.  Local retailing is vulnerable to external influences which will alter where the shopper chooses to shop and spend their money. Once open the designer outlet village will inevitably draw visitors and local shoppers away from Tiverton, Crediton and Cullompton. This could potentially lead to more vacant units and really undermine the long term vision and success of our vital high streets and our independent shops. The designer outlet village will have a negative impact on my business and the Tiverton town centre. This allocation is too soon at a time when we are starting to work together to create a local destination that we are all proud of. Please don’t undermine all the hard work that the local businesses and the council have done to get Tiverton where it is today.  Therefore I ask you, that you not include this development in the new Local Plan submission. Based on my concerns I ask are members completely satisfied that the proposed Junction 27 allocation will not have a detrimental impact on existing businesses in Crediton Tiverton and Cullompton?

Mr  Disney again referring to Item 4 on the agenda stated  - My question is about the perception of the requirement for extra housing if Junction 27 is allocated for employment use.  Some 60% of the working age population of Mid Devon migrate out of the district to find employment and I would like to know what that actually relates to in numbers of employees and how many go through Junction 27 at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

To receive the minutes of the meeting of 4 August 2016.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 4 August 2016 were approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration requesting  Members to consider the implications to the Local Plan of making a major modification to the Local Plan Review to allocate land at J27 of the M5 for a leisure/retail/tourism and employment development.

The Cabinet had before it a * report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration requesting it to consider the implications to the Local Plan of making a major modification to the Local Plan Review to allocate land at J27 of the M5 for leisure/retail/tourism and employment development.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report stating that before the meeting today was the issue of land allocation and that the Cabinet were not being requested to determine any particular scheme by the land promoter or an application by the land promotor. She also clarified that business rate revenue was not a material planning consideration and should not form part of consideration of an allocation. She outlined the history of the site and the various schemes that had come forward over many years, the agreement for the new area of growth identified east of Cullompton and that a new settlement limit option north of Willand was not pursued; the proposed submission plan of 2014 that had omitted J27 as allocated land and the work that had taken place to date to address the issues raised in 2014.

She identified the site by way of presentation, highlighting the elements of the allocation and the land ownership evidence. The tourism and leisure opportunity would be supported by a retail facility in the form of a designer village outlet. She addressed the work that had taken place by the Council’s Retail Consultant and the issue of trade draw which had been highlighted during public question time, it had been suggested that there would be some trade draw impact but that this would be offset by expenditure growth and was not considered significant.  She also explained the “Duty to Cooperate” consultation that had taken place with surrounding local authorities and although some concerns had been raised with regard to the impact on retail, the allocation was still thought to be sound. However objection from certain Duty to Cooperate partners was still expected.

With regard to the movement of people who chose to shop outside Mid Devon, it was anticipated that such an allocation would have the potential to claw back some expenditure leakage.  The officer addressed the housing issue identified during public question time. An updated assessment for the whole of the Local Plan had resulted in an additional 400 houses as the result of finalisation of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. It was felt that the additional dwellings could be met within allocated sites taking into account permissions granted.  The National Planning Policy Framework acknowledged the importance of ensuring housing numbers and employment opportunities were considered in tandem. There was a need to allocate additional land to accommodate 260 dwellings in the vicinity of Junction 27 if the land were to be put forward. Potential sites were then outlined; with regard to the site at Sampford Peverell and the questions posed in public question time: the suggestion that the site was fairly prominent meant that the density would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

During discussion of the following items it may be necessary to pass the following resolution to exclude the press and public having reflected on Article 12 12.02(d) (a presumption in favour of openness) of the Constitution. This decision may be required because consideration of this matter in public may disclose information falling within one of the descriptions of exempt information in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. The Cabinet will need to decide whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption, outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. 

To consider passing the following resolution so that financial information may be discussed.

Recommended that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the next item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information

As there was a need to discuss financial information which was commercially sensitive, it was

RESOLVED that:  under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the next item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

(Proposed by the Chairman)

To advise Cabinet Members on the results for the roofing contract 2016/17 and confirm approval to award the contract.

The Cabinet had before it a * report of the Head of Housing and Property Services regarding the results for the roofing contract 2016/17 and requesting approval to award the contract.

The Cabinet Member for Housing outlined the contents of the report.

The meeting returned to open session and it was:

RESOLVED that the recommendations within the report be approved.

(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr Mrs M E Squires)

Note: *Report previously circulated.