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 Salter – referring to Item 9 on the agenda (Tiverton EUE)
Nationally, there is a consensus that key requirements for affordable homes on new developments are:
In Tiverton Civic Society’s first objection to this planning application, we approved of the provision of much needed social housing, but we argued against the construction of the large visually obtrusive three storey Neighbourhood Hub in Plot C, which had been introduced without consultation since the Outline Application, and we suggested that, to encourage greater social cohesion, affordable housing should be distributed throughout the development site. Russell Smith, for Walsingham Planning, countered by stating that the hub will be of an appropriate scale and that it is not a sensitive location, going on to write that ‘affordable housing has been provided in a mix of apartments and two storey dwellings, with affordable housing being spread across all phases’.
Examination of the recently posted plan of affordable housing shows this statement to be somewhat economical with the truth. In particular, apart from the Neighbourhood Hub, there is no other housing of this category in Plot C, the extensive development south of Blundell’s Road, it being entirely concentrated in the north-west sector in two small Plots, 1A and 1B, of mixed, low- cost, market and affordable housing the affordable housing being located on either side of the new linking road leading to the A361 junction, shared equity housing being located to the west of this road and social housing to the east. In terms many of the criteria listed above it is very hard to justify these locations and this concentration.
We have specific concerns about the line of affordable housing comprising units 140-149, which will face the potentially very busy linking road. At this point the gap between these dwellings and this road will be no more than five metres, thus exposing the occupants to the highest potential levels of air and noise pollution on the complete Redrow site, and compromising the safety of families, especially those with young children.
During meetings with Redrow Homes the MDDC Planning Officer was very aware of the need to establish a green boundary space on the western side of the linking road, thereby setting these affordable properties, much further back. However, this was refused by the applicants, thus suggesting that they have little interest in the quality of life and well-being of the future occupants, as well as laying them open to the charge that they will be treated as second-class citizens. The problems of this location are compounded when it is also considered that, neither Plot 1A or Plot 1B area has any public open green space and no play area, and no controlled crossing point is shown on Blundell’s Road giving access to these, as well as other services and facilities.
Question
James Hudson referring to Item 2 on the Plans List (Shortacombe) stated that:
The Applicant has failed to provide a percolation test as required by Public Health and that issue was emphasised by the concerns of Crediton Hamlets Parish Council whose members have direct experience in Vortex water treatment. She has ignored the regulations of South West Water in their submission of April 23rd by already placing hardcore over the water main and not saying how she will meet regulations and move the water main with the additional works required.
The officer has placed conditions of occupancy on the applicant which are unenforceable and I would like to know:
Graham Knight referring to Item 2 (Shortacombe) on the Plans List stated that he lived at Binneford and that given the type of soil which is heavy clay and sets like rock in summer and is waterlogged in winter and will never pass a percolation test and that there is no ditch or water course or public sewage system and public health won’t support a compost toilet, can Mr Devereaux please explain what he is saying as the alternative drainage system which is found on page 71 of the public document pack because according to treatment plants installation requirements, there aren’t any.
Sasha Scougall Knight also referring to Item 2 on the Plans List stated that her question related to safe and convenient access to local facilities. The nearest shop to the site is in Cheriton Bishop but this is a convenience store for a top up shop, for a full shop the applicant would need to travel to Crediton which is 5 miles from the site. The nearest doctor’s surgery is in Cheriton Bishop but it is not the catchment for new arrivals to the site postcode; the applicant would have to travel 5 miles to Crediton. The nearest hospital is in Crediton, but is does not have an A&E department so the applicant would have to travel to Exeter which is 15 miles away. There are no direct public transport links to site so in relation in Policy DM7, can the Planning Officer explain that without to a car how can access to local facilities be provided.
Sam Scougall Knight again referring to Item 2 on the Plans List stated that his questions relates to the location and environment of the application. The site is located in open countryside and it has trees overhanging the location of the static caravan and can only be accessed by a single track lane which is narrow, hilly and uneven. In autumn and winter, rainfall flows in rivers down this lane, which can be completely blocked with snow for days in the worst weather. Photographs have previously been shared with the Planning Department clearly showing these conditions. How can the Planning Officer claim that this location provides suitable environmental quality and is a safe location as per policy DM7?
David Pearson - again referring to Item 2 on the Plans List stated that South West Water clearly stated 23rd April that “that no development would be permitted within 3 metres of the water main and ground cover should not be substantially altered, and should the development encroach on the 3 metre the water main will need to be moved at the expense of the applicant. The planning officer is very well aware of this fact and that there would be building works over the water mains, the hard core placed at the entrance already contravenes south west waters requirement as does the ditch and hard core additions as shown on the plans . Why has the planning officer simply ignored this as this relates to the water supply safety of the community of Binneford?
Stephanie Crawford again referring to Item 2 on the Plans List stated that the plans show a vortex treatment plant and a drainage field, Public Health on 9 April clearly stated that a percolation test must be carried out prior to any decision being made, this is to ensure that there is no risk of contamination that as all inhabitants and farmers know that the clay soil on the site will flood. Can the Planning officer explain why he did not follow this up with the applicant? A percolation test could have easily been arranged in the time frame or was it because the applicant and the planning officer knew it would fail the test and chose to ignore Public Health and the welfare of the inhabitants of Binneford community.
Mr Elston referring to Item 9 (Tiverton EUE) on the agenda stated that page 113 of your briefing notes (section 9) makes reference to a representation relating to a lack of public consultation entered into by the applicant Redrow Homes at the urban design and architectural principles stage of the planning process. The Tiverton EUE Masterplan SPD page 23 section 1.7 design process says that MDDC will expect landowners and developers to follow the prescribed process which is adopted as an integral part of the SPD. This is a prescriptive, must do requirement, there is no scope for any misinterpretation. Specifically and under the urban design principles heading section 177 states that there is a requirement for public consultation, stakeholder workshop and liaison at this stage of the process, none of this requirement happened. Another requirement of section 1.7 not complied with by the applicant is that they failed engage in a design review panel process prior to submitting the reserved matters application. Even the applicants own published EUE planning process for flow chart shows that the design panel will be engaged before submission of the reserved matters application. Redrow failed to engage with the panel experts of which echoing 1.7 says the involvement of the design panel in scrutinising the quality of the designs as they come forward at one or more stages in the design process will provide invaluable support to MDDC as they make planning decisions. This has yet been another very serious noncompliance of the process.
Redrow Homes only engaged with the Design Review Panel on the 9th June 2021, some 12 weeks after submitting the reserved matters application and just 7 days before the application came before the Planning Committee on 16 June. The review panel report was not issued until the 18th June, just 2 days after the first planning meeting. The Design Panel reports makes some very concerning reading, including that the Panel emphasised that much earlier would have made recommendations more compatible, that the panel was mindful of avoiding comment at this late stage, that the panel gave advice of when the design panel be engaged in future phases and very concerning the panel says that Redrows are responding to requirements of what they consider a UAPD document. The Tiverton EUE SPD design process has become totally corrupted, the design quality has suffered as a result. My question is did the MDDC planning officers at any time attempt to enforce the requirements for Redrow Homes to enter into the public consultation or stakeholder workshops or the Review Panel Process in compliance of 1.7 of the masterplan SPD and at the most critical time of the Tiverton EUE design process.
Mary Seaton again referring to Agenda item 9 stated that her schooling and that of my family have been in Tiverton, I live in one of the 10 existing properties to the south of Blundells Road that was built in the 1950’s and please note clearly that these are the only residences that have direct abutment to this proposed development by Redrow Homes. I wish to bring to your attention that they propose to build a street of 21 houses, 230 metres long and just 11 metres from the boundary of our homes on rising ground allowing which is effectively a terrace. Before my questions, the committee members should be aware that a) the original outline plans show just 8 properties, well-spaced and with differing aspects within 20 metres of the existing properties, sympathetically allowing views for all and a feeling of space. Redrow Homes massively increased that number to 18 houses and a road setting when submitting their urban and architectural principles document, they then increased the number to 21 houses in their reserved matters presentation, a terrace with no relief, they also introduced a neighbourhood hub, not on any previous plan, whose sole purpose seems to be to squash more dwellings including flats into the plan. The Design Panel Review on June 18 this year remarked upon the lovely view which makes a significant contribution to the character and the space. Despite this Redrow have reduced the space between the houses, have effectively obliterated the ground floor and far reaching view from the existing residences as well as compromising our privacy. The Design Review Panel was very critical of this row of 21 houses and thought that it should be varied, by having gaps including pockets of trees and the street frontage was relentless in form and could be softened and there was scope to do this in the design. In all correspondence made available to the public, not one mention is made by Planning officers of the following contraventions let alone challenge to the design. Why are Redrow Homes being allowed to be non-compliant with the centre to edge policy as set out originally, i.e. less density of housing to the edge of the plan? Why have Redrow Homes been allowed to create another unplanned area which they call a neighbourhood hub, an area which generates the highest density of housing unsympathetically next to our existing properties? Redrow Homes are in contravention of the Tiverton EUE masterplan SPD and design guide and are not considering the outcome from the Design Review Panel. All of these are material considerations which should encourage committee members to reject this application as it stands, Tiverton deserves and needs something better than this, we are not getting the special tailored design for the promised garden village. This is a piecemeal design for a routine Redrow estate that you could sadly find in any other part of the country built for maximum profit. I respectfully ask you to consider what you have been asked to approve, this is the biggest building programme that Tiverton has seen ever and this is the first step which will be used as precedent for the rest of the huge EUE extension. The whole of the extension need to be cohesively planned and not bit by bit as land becomes available; and this design needs to be seen in the context of the whole development.
Hannah Kearns again referring to Item 9 on the agenda stated that she would like to ask questions in relation to the neighbourhood hub shown in Redrow’s plans for development of land immediately adjoining existing dwellings on Blundells Road. For context para 1 of page 104 of your briefing notes makes reference to a representation to you in relation to high density of housing immediately against the original residences and has been justified by a neighbourhood hub. She spoke of the proposed density in the area against that in the residential core and referred to the lack of reference to a neighbourhood hub in that area in the master plan document or the design guide, further there were no drawings of any of the MDDC adopted plan documents. She referred to drawings that stated that the neighbourhood hub would be positioned elsewhere in the development and that outline permission would not have been granted with the hub in the current location and she made reference to the lack of pubic consultation. She felt that Redrow Homes had fabricated a hub to justify high density housing in the area immediately by the Blundells Road properties and in doing so had freed up the land to the south for higher valued properties to take advantage of the high value vistas that exist commented on by the Design Review Panel. She referred to the centre of edge policy and stated that the plans show the exact reverse. She asked - can the planning officer provide details of where the neighbourhood hub was mentioned in any of the MDDC planning documents and referred to page 79 of the SPD, she asked why officers had not challenged this and why had the area to the north of Blundells Road been treated as a northern gateway hub, where the master plan centre to edge policy was not being adhered too. She referred to the density of properties and the lack of play areas for children in the area.
Sir David Jephcott again referring to Item 9 on the agenda stated: Redrow Homes seek to provide a 1.5 metre or 3 metre buffer strip to the rear of the Blundells Road properties rather than a 5 metre strip that the planning officers had previously expected. Page 105 in your notes states that 3 properties have long gardens so would be subject to only a 1.5 metre buffer, this statement is factually incorrect. Additional one of the properties with a reduced buffer ‘Barnshollow’, has a swimming pool which covers a significant amount of the garden and therefore an increased buffer is needed for privacy. Redrow indicate that the gardens are reduced from 11 metres to 8.5 this reduction is in the garden rather than where they are actually building the houses, therefore best for fit is not compromised. He then referred to emails that were in the public domain between MDDC and Redrow. Why do the planning officers now consider acceptable that the 5 metre strip is no longer required and referred to the detail of the emails which referred to the landscape buffer being 5 metres wide, and in another email with regard to 1 metre planting, and how the officers were uncomfortable with the amount of space identified. He asked why the planning officer was put under such pressure and by whom. He stated that the Head of Planning had changed position with regard to the buffer zone to the detriment of the Blundells Road homes, what caused this change of position? Why should Redrow Homes be treated any different to David Wilson Homes at the top of Post Hill, a 5 metre strip was signed off by the then Planning Manager for David Wilson Homes, the same Planning Manager is now the same for Redrow. He referred to the contents of an email which stated that it would not be equitable to treat the Blundells Road properties any differently.
The Chairman indicated that answers to questions would be provided when the items were debated.