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:
1. Pat Pratley referring to item 10 on the agenda stated
Question one: will the committee explain why they believe that this site, adjoining the settlement of Tiverton, defined in the Local Plan as a Market Town, qualifies as an exception site within the context of policy of DM6 which states that an exception site must adjoin a settlement which will usually mean one of the settlements, defined in policy S13 which is concerned with the development of 22 village locations and settlements which do not function as Market Towns?
Question two: If the interpretation placed on S13 and DM6 in the report is accepted, what does the committee consider will be the spatial implications for the three Market Towns with regard to future applications for affordable housing outside but adjacent to their settlement boundaries?
Question three: Members have been asked to consider the Local Plan in its totality and policy S10 states that the Council will guide development to retain the green setting provided by the green steep open hillsides particularly to the west and south. Policy S14 states in its introduction ‘Development outside the settlements defined by policy S10 to S13 will preserve and where possible enhance the character, appearance and biodiversity of the countryside'. What is the committee’s view of the ability of the development to achieve these objectives?
2. Major Jenkins referring to item 11 on the agenda provided the following questions which were read out by the Chairman:
Would the Committee agree that the 2 month delay in bringing this hearing back before the Planning Committee, requested by the applicants agent on the 22 March 2021 has tactically and unnecessarily moved the application into a time frame where it could be considered the building becomes exempt under the ’four year rule’, a mitigating factor that the ‘Implications Report’ now raises, and that the decision should be firmly based on the date that the first request for a ‘Certificate of Lawfulness’ was applied for on 24 June 2020, at which point it was a further 13 months before it would be 4 years old, cognisant of the fact that the building first came to the attention of the Council in August 2019 as being in continuous occupation at which point the building was just over 2 years old.
Could it please be explained as to why the applicants agent has been able to submit further evidence, by way of yet further revised plans for consideration that have effectively changed the application, after the 14 day period, during which written objection had to be submitted which raised issues that were based on the evidence that had been previously submitted (prior to the14 day period) and on which, notification of receipt and publication had been sent by the Planning Services Department on 13 May 21?
3. Lisa Clifford referring to item 11 on the agenda provided the following questions which were read out by the Chairman:
Why is there no reference to the installation of a WC and sewage facilities mentioned in the report? Given the proposed building is 14 mm at its narrowest and 18 mm at its widest to the neighbouring boundary, the roof gutter down pipe touches the boundary I feel there is good reason to consider the implication of installing a sanitary unit. There are Building Regulations specific to the purpose of the installation or change of building to one that will house a sanitary unit, but I found this missing in the implication report, why?
What is the guarantee that the building will be built accordance to proper standards to ensure safety and hygiene?
I note that there have been no conditions put in place to increase the distance between the building and neighbouring boundaries, which are not the recommended 2.5 m but instead 14 mm at its narrowest and 18 mm. Why has the closeness of the shed to the boundary been ignored?
I wonder how the applicant will be able to access their building for maintenance if there is no access available?
When permission to access neighbouring gardens is given is relying on the removal of neighbours fencing to access the sides of the building for maintenance short sighted and impractical? What happens if a neighbour plans to place a building/shed next to their own fence, or as has been done invested a large amount of money on planting. Does it not seem more sensible to have a condition, if the application is approved, to narrow the building allowing easy access to the shed?
Why is this building constantly described as a timber building when it is timber cladding, which is not sound proof – I note there is no comments about sound proofing considering the building will have a living space, bedroom and shower/wc. Will the building be made soundproof to allow enjoyment of quiet of people’s gardens?
The report has acknowledged it is a subjective, but it fails to consider and respect the sentiments of many applications that expressed a collective concern that the approval of this building will set a precedence. It ignores the fact that the proposed use of the building does not fit in with sheds/outbuilding in this small community. Why is this not important?
I have noted in the report that a financial risk sways the application towards approval, but the risk to the well-being of those living in the adjoining properties and implication of its approval in setting a precedence and the negative environmental affect this could have on the environment it surrounds is ignored, what is the rationale?
If the building is approved what are the ramifications of the building being used outside the permitted use outlined in the report? Who and how are these rules imposed and what are the penalties?
4. Paul Elstone, referring to item 9 on the agenda:
Madam Chair, you give me three minutes but my understanding is that 30 minutes are given to Public Questions normally within the planning process. Secondly and I totally respect your position as Chairman of the Planning Committee but I in advance was in communication with the MDDC Chief Executive, Mr Walford, and suggested that I would be asking quite a few questions at this meeting and he encouraged me and suggested that it was totally appropriate to do so. I would add that I have on that basis 17 questions to ask.
The Chairman reminded Mr Elstone that 3 minutes is all that is allowed for each speaker during Public Question Time.
Mr Elstone continued…. Well given that, there is no point in me asking any questions because they are all very much interlinked. I am going to be selective as clearly I have tried to get some prearrangement whereby I wouldn’t even be having to ask these questions at this moment. That failed so the fall back was, as I say, I did speak to Mr Walford and he suggested it was wholly appropriate that I raise them at this meeting but if that is your position I am going to have to be selective and it is going to be very difficult so just bear with me….
One question: Key section of the UK Governments National Planning Policy Framework, published in February 2019 section pre-application engagement on front loading, paragraph 40 extract, states the Local Planning Authorities have a key role to play in the process of public engagement. That LPA's should, where they think it will be beneficial, encourage any applicants who are not already required by law to engage with the local community and where relevant statutory or non statutory consultees be forced to consider applications. My question therefore is, did the MDDC Planning Officers at any stage stage encourage Redrows to enter into consultation with the public? If so, when and how was this done? I ask this question as in the Statement of Community Involvement in February 2021, section Appendix 1, section 3.5, Redrows say, because these design proposals relate closely to the EUE planning documents that they consider it not necessary to enter into further levels of public consultation. Respectfully we need to change that word from 'further' to ‘no’ public consultation. I would add that any cursory view of the mapping of the outline planning application for reserve matters show very many major changes. I do believe that the applicant is being very disingenuous, not only to the public and Tiverton Town but to MDDC councillors to say the very least.
I am going to go into another question in a similar vein which I would not have to ask if the public had been consulted. The Tiverton EUE Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document adopted by MDDC in 2018, states in section 1.7, that public consultation is required at the urban design of the planning process, it is considered that public consultation should be a prescriptive requirement. My question is why did this public consultation not happen? Especially important as there has been no public consultation on Area A of the Tiverton EUE development in 2014 as a function of the outline planning application. So this is a significant thing. As a result of there being no public consultation we have just one person left to speak for three minutes in a planning committee plus a chance to ask a few questions. This, after Planning Officers have made planning recommendations to the Planning Committee for approval of the planning application.
I am at a loss as to how constrained I am. I would like to ask one more question (Mr Elstone was then asked to conclude his statement by the Chairman....). He continued......this just reflects what is wrong in the planning process, public consultation and no opportunity to ask questions at the planning stage. Thank you Madam Chair, clearly it reaffirms a view of the whole planning process of what has been happening over recent months and recent years.
The Operations Manager for Legal and Monitoring advised Members that Mr Elstone had been in contact with the Chief Executive and the Monitoring Officer asking for a deferral of the application but that there was no basis for a deferral.