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:
Dr Whittlesey referring to Item 5 (Chettiscombe Estate) on the agenda stated:
· Do you recall that in the AIDPD Inspector’s report of 2010, (3.48) he forecast that the adverse planning impact would fall on” flood risk, visual amenity and the wildlife and ancient hedgerows in West Manley Lane” We have come full circle.
· You are aware of the numerous references to the national importance of the SSSI including input from Natural England, Tidcombe Lane Fen Society, Devon Wildlife Trust, Are you, like them, in agreement with all the measures that must be employed to protect not only the SSSI but also the Ailsa Brook and do you share our concern that even within this outline application the nature of these mitigating measures is not clear?
· Although they have withdrawn their objection on technical grounds, do you agree with Natural England along with Tidcombe Lane Fen Society written statements that the complete safety of the water supply to the SSSI can only be achieved by not allowing development south of the lane?
· Within this application, are the structures and long-term management of sewerage, flooding and foul water measures sufficiently outlined to be reliable?
· Are you conversant with the Devon Wildlife Consultancy’s Hedgerow assessments of 2009 and 2013 and their classification of the entire length of hedge bank as important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, and that it currently serves as a wildlife connectivity corridor and safe environment for small mammal species and birds, some of which are conservation concern listed and are you in agreement with MDDC’s own concept of protection and enhancement of this hedgerow?
· Are you aware that along its length, this single track lane, currently used by some 12 private cars, service vehicles and farm machinery, there are three right-angle bends, no footpath and no designated passing places and that the proposed development of 3 or 4 bedroomed houses north and south of the lane would not only destroy segments of the hedgerow but would introduce 35-50 more cars and increase “peak hour flows” by 80-110 journeys (PFA’s own traffic assessments for Chettiscombe Trust) Do you accept that new entrances separate from the proposed housing, for both farm and vehicles servicing the attenuation ponds and sewerage machinery would need to be constructed
· Did you know that an increasing numbers of people are using the lane for all manner of exercise; do you agree that if the result of the proposed housing development is a rise in traffic movements in the lane, with its lack of footpath and limited visibility there will be a significant effect on road safety issues?
· Therefore, would you not agree that by retaining the fields south of the lane as public open spaces and green infrastructure options, this would fit with MDDC’s own stated environmentally friendly plans and would set the whole area in a more safe and rural setting.
· Finally, in their somewhat selective précis of our recent responses, are you aware that the planning officers make several incorrect attributions? Do you share our disappointment that after six years of reasoned argument, research and response, there is little to show for this in their current report.
· So, would you to consider removing development south of West Manley Lane from this outline planning application, with the redistribution of the affected 1% proposed housing stock in favour of access to a safe scenic and sustainable route for Tivertonians and their wildlife?
Mr McCreadie referring to item 3 on the Plans List (The Old Forge) stated:
Would it be possible for the Committee to take into account the fact that I do understand that the area is classified as open countryside, but this proposed development is within the hamlet of New Buildings which has 36 houses and would be surrounded by buildings on all sides, and knowing that there are very few exceptions regarding new builds I hope the proposed site could be regarded as one of those exceptions.
Are the Committee aware that the reason there is not much left of the building is because its partial demolition was overseen by M.D.D.C. and they decided that it had to be brought to this level for safety reasons and that not much notice was given by M.D.D.C. to Mr. John Short, the then owner, before it had to be partly demolished to make it safe.
Does the Committee not think that if perhaps more time could have been given to discuss other means of making it safe, while leaving it mostly intact (i.e. shoring it up and removing the slates) that more consideration could have been given to its future use.
Does the Committee agree that it can only be good to allow a smaller more affordable home to be built within the hamlet “boundaries” to allow perhaps a young couple to live in our pleasant surroundings and on an aesthetic point, remove the blot on an otherwise pleasing landscape which would be a far more in keeping setting for the Grade II listed Old Wheelwrights opposite than the eyesore the Old Forge has now become.
Would the Committee consider that if the development were allowed it would “knit” back together the original sites of Wheelwrights and Blacksmiths, the Wheelwrights having already been converted to a house, and afterwards the new development could be named “the Old Forge” to further show the original history of the site.
Mr Aspray speaking on behalf of Dr Bell and referring to Item 5 (Chettiscombe Trust) on the agenda stated I listened with interest to the audio record of the Planning Committee Meeting of 18th March.
In response to one Member's request for definitive assurance that traffic would be directed and controlled before any housing development would take place, Mr Guscott replied that no such development can take place in the EUE area until either traffic calming along Blundell's Road or the LILO were in place.
According to the resolution granting planning permission for the Waddeton Park development approved
by this Committee on 21st May 2014 and repeated in the minutes of your meeting for 27th August 2014 the S106 agreement clause (xviii), suggests that there is an arrangement for a financial settlement that would allow Waddeton Park freedom to commence development without either the Blundell's Road traffic calming or LILO in place.
I ask this Committee to clarify this matter please and ensure that no such clause is allowed in any permission statements that may be made in relation to this current application.
Mrs Cluneis-Ross again referring to item 5 on the agenda asked how is it proposed to provide additional supplies of gas, water and electricity to the new development without ruining the road and pavement enhancements planning for Blundells Road through the school campus in particular?
The Chairman stated that answers to these questions would be given as part of the officer’s presentation
Cllr Ursell (Willand Parish Council) referring to Item 9 on the agenda (Delegated List) Planning reference 14/01547/FULL asked: Do elected members consider that it would be more appropriate for an application to be brought before the planning committee for determination rather than being approved by an officer under delegated authority where the applicant has materially altered the layout of the site and the amended application has not been referred back to objectors and to the Parish Council who had recommended refusal?
Would it also be more appropriate for the application to be brought before this committee where standard MDDC planning policies are not to be followed?
The reasons for recommending refusal related to design and materials not being wholly in keeping with other properties in the area and the fact that the garages were smaller than the sizes set out in MDDC planning policy.
Would elected members be concerned that the reasons for recommending refusal were summarily dismissed in the officer’s report and further that in that report reference is made to advice from the Tree Officer and Highways Officer which does not appear to be documented in the public domain on the MDDC website?
Cllr Warren (Willand Parish Council) referring to Item 9 on the agenda (Delegated List) planning reference 14/01675/FULL asked is it appropriate that delegated powers should be used where consultation has taken place on revised plans for a development where the reasons for change have not been declared but later found to be as the result of discussions between an officer and agent but not noted until the report? The officers report states that no letter of objection have been received to the amended design which is not true as the Parish Council objected to the amended design for a number of reasons and their letter is on the MDDC website. What are not on the website are the views of the Tree Officer as to removal of a tree and there is an email from Highways which is missing from the site. Is it MDDC policy to withhold such information from the public and elected representatives of the local community?
The Chairman stated that a written response would be provided to Willand Parish Council and circulated to Members of the Committee.