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.
Mr Mills referring to Item 4 (Pleasant Streams) on the Plans List stated: My question concerns the many heavy vehicles that are kept on the site as part of the applicants’ paving business.
Why is this aspect of the development not mentioned in the application or officer report? Should it not be, seeing that the Mid Devon Development Plan’s Policy DM 18 on rural employment development states:
“It is important that the various indirect consequences of employment development such as security fencing, lighting, advertising material, open storage and vehicle parking and manoeuvring provisions do not harm the visual environment.”
Should a similar condition on the nature of the site be imposed in the current application?
Mrs Mills again referring to Item 4 (Pleasant Streams) on the Plans List stated that this application for 6 pitches is apparently based on the applicant’s needs and circumstances although as you know the applicants owned land with permanent permission until 6 months ago was in County Durham. However Condition 12 makes it clear that the applicants could sell the whole site or part of it to anyone leading a nomadic life style. Consequently if this application is approved, the applicant stands to gain several hundreds of thousands of pounds through increased land value, this would clearly make a mockery of the needs argument. So the question I would like to officer to respond to is – why has the use of a personal condition for the 6 family units in question for which the needs argument is used not been seriously considered within the officer report? This is particularly confusing seeing that:
Frances Wilcox again referring to item 4 on the Plans List stated that she was very concerned about this application for several reasons: are members satisfied that this is a suitable location when under policy you want to encourage walking and cycling? Pleasant Streams are proposing to put another entrance on this very busy Uffculme Road (B3340) with a national speed limit, this road has no street lighting or footpath. The Highways Authority do not see this as a concern just because there are no statistics to prove it. Anyone will be taking a chance to walk this road in day light, let alone in the dark. I was in attendance not so long ago further up the road outside Langlands Business Park, where a member of the public got off a bus, crossed the road to the footpath on the other side and in the process got run over. It was dark and the van driver had not seen the pedestrian. Emergency services were called several times before attending and the man was eventually air lifted to get treatment, he did survive, but this could have been worse. Pleasant Streams does not have a safe and convenient access to local facilities and the bus service is also very limited. Can you advise how they will cater for a space for children to play, is there even enough private space for an individual home or parking spaces? Especially considering the lorries and containers already there. How can this be achieved? After all this, is the officer satisfied that any condition will be adhered to? There was no compliance with any previous conditions and there is very little point in putting in conditions on applications if officers are unable or unwilling to enforce them. This application does not comply with national policy or your own Local Plan, so what assurance can you give to the public that any conditions will be adhered to?
Mr Bratby referring to the Minutes of 14 July 2021 stated: this is a very serious issue as there has been an attack on democracy, somebody has deliberately inserted the 2 words ‘high grade’ into the 3rd reason for refusal, proposed by a duly elected councillor and agreed by the majority of the committee. These 2 words have completely changed the reason for refusal, the 2 words did not get in there by accident, so has a thorough investigation been undertaken, has the person responsible been disciplined and if not why not? And finally have measures been put in place to prevent this sort of corruption of the planning system from happening again.
Mr Wilson (speaking on behalf of his wife) and referring to Item 2 (Heronsfield House) asked: Is it usual for a planning officer to disregard the recommendations of the Public Health Officer?
The Chairman read out a set of questions from Mr Hiscock referring to Item 1 (Stoneyford) on the Plans List:
1. Why is an industrial estate being built directly within a residential area as it will bring noise, smell, signage, vehicle and light pollution plus crime to the community?
2. The industrial estate will definitely cause a large increase in the volume of heavy goods vehicles passing through our community. How can you let this happen?
3. The new estates entrance is unsuitable and unsafe. It is being built at the top of a blind hill from of Cullompton. The junction breaks the DCC precedent of having right turn safety lane to commercial premises in Stoneyford. Long heavy goods vehicles turning right out of the new estate will block the entire width of the Honiton Road. Vehicles turning right into the estate will block the entire left hand lane encouraging motorists to undertake using the kerbside private land.
4. The Honiton Road public footpath - Once anyone steps off of the narrow path and damages private land the residents will bear the cost. The path is also out of sight of the industrial estate. We do not want commercial signage pollution in a residential area to overcome this problem.
5. The new road junction will encourage pedestrian customers to use the private service road opposite and if that road was restricted no doubt they will walk along the unprotected A373.
6. Kingsmill Industrial estate is nowhere near fully developed.
7. The large undeveloped ‘Cullompton Business Park’ should be used first.
8. The Kingsmill Road should be used as further development rather than encroaching into a residential area.
9. Junction 28 M5 is at full capacity and further industrial development will worsen the traffic volume especially as the Cullompton relief road and the new M5 junction are in jeopardy.
10. There is a ransom strip of land and a covenant indirectly linked to this application regarding the new road system and the document shows that if this application is approved the ransom strip and covenant may be lifted to assist the Garden Village’s development this must be brought out into the open and discussed.
The Chairman indicated that answers to questions would be provided when the items were discussed.