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:
Mr Winter referring to Item 12 (Duvale Barton) on the agenda stated that - the input from Environmental Health seems very hypothetical to me and ignores the real problem we have with sound historically and the issues we have had with enforcement historically and really bears no weight whatsoever in my opinion. Obviously they only apply if passed.
Yesterday, I did send into the committee a satellite picture of the barn in question, this rather begs the question why the planning conditions set to have doors and windows shut with the large agricultural vents in the roof to allow livestock to breath - this seems rather strange. This also begs the question as to what survey the planning department performed on the building. I didn’t have to leave my office to discover this.
Mrs Jacobs referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Tumbling Fields) stated that she lived at 12 Tumbling Fields and asked whether the committee had been to visit the site where they are proposing to build these houses at the access to the back of my property up into Hamblin Close, where there are disabled people, OAPs and small children and lots of traffic already going in on this site and also on Tumbling Fields Lane where there is also a lot of traffic, particularly agricultural traffic coming down. I am very frightened about my personal safety and the safety of small children and a very disabled young man who lives on that site.
Miss Chee Wong representing Angela Clyburn again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List stated that there is a report that there are a number of legally protected species on the site, so surely it is illegal for the applicant to deliberately go out of their way to disturb and disrupt breeding and frighten species away. Surely the requirements protecting these are already being broken, they should be protected under the statutory obligations in the species protection law. We need to be sure that if this building goes ahead that the wildlife will be adequately protected without further disruption to their habitat and their breeding.
Mr Baker referring to Item 12 on the agenda stated: can the committee explain why both agricultural buildings/barns were not demolished when 6 units were granted permission on the condition that both barns were to be taken down and removed from the site. This I believe to be a failure by the enforcement team. Can the committee confirm if any members have visited the site to see if the barns are fit for purpose, if not please show the members the photos that you have had presented to you. Can the committee explain why the planning officer is concentrating on door slamming and movements when the issue has always been the loud music and the noise of people escalating from the function hall?
Gill Hookins again referring to Item 12 stated that she was the immediate neighbour to Duvale Priory, how does the committee perceive the inherent risk of overturning the planning condition for residents use only stipulated by the Planning Inspector on appeal 7 years ago and does the committee think that the volume of noise from the music at a function for 30 be any different from the volume of noise for a function for 130. I don’t think so.
Cllr William Knowles again referring to item 12 stated: I am a little confused in the minutes about the emphasis on car door slamming, when actually it is the noise of the music. I was also going to ask about whether someone had been to inspect the site from the relevant authorities and if not, is it not possible that rather than make a decision today, if there is still a lot of indecision, would it not be possible to defer the decision until more information is brought to hand.
Mrs Pratley referring to item 1 on the Plans List asked the following questions –
Question 1
The Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013-33 adopted by full Council on 9 July 2019 and the Tiverton Central Area Local Plan Review map shows the land the subject of this planning application is outside the settlement area. Furthermore, Local Plan Policy S10 states amongst its principles retention of “the green setting provided by the steep open hillsides, particularly to the west and south of the town”. This development is precisely the type of development which Policy S10 was written to protect. I believe the recommendation to approve fails to have due regard to the strategic context of this site on the setting and settlement limit to the south of the town. Will the committee please explain why breaching the settlement limit and failure to demonstrate adherence to Policy S10 are not material considerations in determining this application?
Policy S10 is not relevant as outside settlement boundary. As such Policy S14 applies where affordable housing is allowed and rural exceptions policy. The application is therefore subject to separate policy consideration as outlined in the report.
Question 2
The Mid Devon Local Plan makes provision for 17% more housing than required presumably based on the current settlement limit of the town. 74% of the required dwellings for Tiverton have either been completed or committed with still 12 years of the Local Plan to run. The Local Plan states “a significant proportion of the towns outstanding housing needs will be delivered as part of the Eastern Urban Extension”. Will the committee please explain why it believes that the delivery of the proposed 22 dwellings on this recreational space cannot be delivered elsewhere within the existing settlement limit?
Question 3
The land subject to the application is described as allotments and by officers as ‘former MDDC allotments”. The land is therefore subject to the provisions of Planning Policy DM26 (previously DM24). Will the committee please confirm that an assessment of need prior to disposal was undertaken, when the site disposal took place and who approved the disposal? Will the committee further confirm whether or not the allotments were afforded protection under the 1925 Allotment Act which requires permission from the Secretary of State before development can take place?
Question 4
Three years after the tragedy of Grenfell Tower it seems hard to comprehend that fire safety is not a material consideration when considering a planning application. The officer report and recommendation to approve makes no comment on the concerns raised by Housing Standards regarding the fire safety design of some plots. This is of concern if, for no other reason, because 4 dwellings will be wheel chair accessible. If minded to approve the application, will the committee consider it being a condition of approval that full plans will have building control approval?
Not inside the control of planning. Building regulations are a separate requirement which will happen without the need for condition.
Comley Payne again referring to Item 12 on the agenda stated: can the committee please explain why the case officer recommends approval for this application as in 2013, Members voted 8-1 to refuse. The appeal inspectorate clearly ruled it to be used solely for residents only and no other use. Now in 2021, the majority of members again voted to refuse this application on issues raised. One being that the volume of music noise would be the same for 30 people as it would for 130 and I feel that this application is no more than an attempt to revert back to times prior to the 2014 appeal decision, understandably, the committee is aware of the cost of appeal, but I am assured that this will have no bearing on the decision, is this correct?
Cllr Steve Bush (Tiverton Town Council) referring to item 1 on the Plans List stated: that he was speaking on behalf of various constituents from Cranmore and beyond. I believe that the development of this site is not required and not desirable in any way. The Local Plan was adopted only last year allocating sufficient sites and even contingency sites to provide ample housing to meet the statutory requirements of the authority. This development would be outside the boundary of the settlement agreed on the plan and I can see no compelling reason to extend that boundary in order to grant permission. Furthermore, I believe that it contradicts many of the strategic policies laid out in that plan as it does not assist in conserving or enhancing the area adjacent to the town centre. In the plan, it states clearly the strategic aims for countryside, environment and heritage assets, to conserve and enhance for the retention of attractive countryside providing for biodiversity. This site sits alongside a particularly attractive and well used footpath which links the town centre to Deymans Hill and also Canal Hill. The hedgerows and trees within and surrounding the site have an abundance of biodiversity including 9 species of bat and dormice, both of which are protected by the Habitats Directive of 1992. This authority has also pledged to retain the views of green hill sites in Tiverton Town centre and this development will impinge upon the views from Phoenix Lane and Fore Street, further eating into the views of green countryside enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. The Local Plan also promises that the market town will be protected and enhance their environmental assets including their character, biodiversity, heritage, setting and air quality. The loss on this site of mature trees, the habitat of protected species, biodiversity and attractive countryside is not in keeping with this particular policy. When viewed in the round with all due material considerations taken into account, I firmly believe that there are no grounds for granting this development planning permission and I would urge the committee to reject the application.
Miss Chee Wong again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List stated: I wanted to point out that there are many natural springs along that hill side, that already collects water in the area and if there is any more building there, this will cause further flooding problems in the area or be diverted to existing properties, which is a danger both environmentally and with walking, it is a hazard and will freeze during bad weather, as there are slopes there, it really isn’t ideal. The sight lines are bad coming out of that entrance from where they propose to have the entrance to the building site and it is just going to be an increased hazard all round.
The Chairman stated that answers to questions would be given when the item as debated.