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:
Cllr B Holdman referring to item 8 (Ashdowne Care Home) on the agenda stated:
The applicant has created a new tarmacked parking provision within the last 12 months that would be buried underneath the proposed extension. This is not some rough patch of grass that is used for occasional overflow parking – this is a dedicated extension of their on-site parking that the applicant created only recently because they themselves are frustrated by the lack of parking on the site.
Mr Millar has given his opinion in the implications report that as there are no new bedrooms in the extension itself then our adopted local plan policy DM5 –which sets out the required minimum parking provision for the entire development– does not need to be considered.
When I spoke before you 4 weeks ago I argued that opinion was not backed up by evidence (or to use the agent’s own words: it was unreal) and I still disagree with that opinion.
How can it possibly be correct that removing existing parking provision from the site still does not create a justifiable reason to refuse under policy DM5?
Our local plan sets out how this authority intends to manage the development of Mid Devon. Its policies need to be applied fairly without fear or favour, or not at all. And yet members often find themselves here disagreeing with how the officers have interpreted parts of the plan one way or another in order to justify decisions that on the face of it go against those policies, or stretch them extremely thinly.
Can Mr Millar or another officer please explain why policy DM5 won’t apply when they are removing existing car parking provision?
Dr Bratby, referring to item 1 on the plans list stated that ;
Every independent observer considers that
the storage of fuel to burn in a power station (and that is exactly
what this application is) is an industrial facility. It does not
matter what type the fuel is, where it comes from or where it is
stored. In 2018 your then planning officer repeatedly told the
applicant this, stating that the whole planning team agreed that it
was industrial. However, on the 8th January 2019 the planning
officer stated that she had "received detailed legal advice on the use of the proposed silage
clamp and consequently am willing to accept that the proposed use
can be classified as agricultural". The
officer's report before you today states that "the officers consider the application to be
agricultural".So this is just an opinion of the
officers.
Where is this detailed legal advice
documented? What exactly does it say? Why has it been kept secret
from the public for nearly 3 years? We all know that there are two
sides to every legal issue. So I am asking that this legal advice
is made public today, so that before making a decision, the public
can see the advice and the committee can decide for itself that
this is an industrial facility that should not be built on
agricultural land?
The officer's report today states that
HGVs would transport the silage from the
site to the AD
plant at Willand. What more evidence do you need to demonstrate
that the use of the proposed clamp is
industrial?
The minutes of the meeting of 17th June 2020 (incorrectly given in the officer's report as 3rd June 2020) stated that the report should answer the question "Where was the legal advice sought from as stated on 4th February 2020"? I believe this should be 8th January 2020. Why has the officer's report before you not answered this question?
Mrs Patricia Parsons referring to Item 8 on the agenda (Ashdowne) stated: I am confused as to why the applicant is claiming that the proposal will not change the parking provision needed on the site. The proposed extension of the existing kitchen will necessarily remove an existing parking provision that is in regular use by staff of the home, including at times the home’s management. This parking provision is shown on the plans the applicant submitted, including on the existing parking plan submitted on 11 August 2021, however for some reason it has not been labelled as being used for parking.
I have a number of photographs showing this that I am happy to share with the chair if he so wishes.
I would like to ask if the committee and the planning officers have considered whether the removal of this parking provision would substantiate a reason for refusal on the grounds of non-compliance with Local Plan Policy DM5, on the basis that the proposal will generate need for additional parking provision to be made to offset that which it removes. If it does not, then what is to stop an applicant from later removing every parking provision on a site to repurpose it under permitted development rights?
The Chairman read a statement from Mr Parry again referring to Ashdowne Care Home: Adopted Policy DM5 opens with the following statement: “Development must provide an appropriate level of parking, taking into account:
a) The accessibility of the site, including the availability of public transport; and
b) The type, mix and use of development”.
It goes on to set out in detail the minimum required parking provision for different classes and uses of development. It has previously been acknowledged by this committee that the parking provision on the site is not just inadequate but barely meets 20% of the minimum under this policy.
Indeed, that inability for the applicant to meet the requirements set out in the Local Plan may have played a part in the original application being revised down to remove additional bedrooms in order to persuade the Highways Authority to withdraw their objection. That is, of course, my conjecture, and the applicant’s right to do so in any case.
I understand from the Planning Officer’s most recent report that he believes that non-compliance with Local Plan Policy DM5 cannot be considered unless this committee can substantiate that the proposal will generate need for additional parking provision to be made.
I have read Policy DM5 paragraph 4.19a, it appears to state that the figure calculated to be about 60 parking spaces is calculated from the demands of the entire site. It states that the remaining parking provision (and more if preferred) should be distributed appropriately throughout the development. I am unable to locate where it states it should not apply when an application excludes bedrooms, particularly when staff and visitors will still need to park, but nonetheless, I understand that is the position of your officers.
Questions 1 and 2 are to the officer who prepared the report – why is it your opinion that DM5 should not apply to this application? And does the revised lack of objection from the Highways Authority after the proposal was revised impact on your opinion, and is so, where is that to be considered under Mid Devon’s adopted policy?
Question 3 – is to the committee – do you consider that the removal of the existing parking provision that will be lost under the new kitchen extension generates the need for additional parking provision to be made under the local plan? Finally, if not, please can you justify why the loss should be disregarded?
The Vice Chairman read a statement from Mr Parsons again referring to Ashdowne Care Home – I have concerns about the ability of the care home complex to safely evacuate in the event of a fire, gas leak, or similar mass evacuation event where speed and safety are critical.
At present the space along the east facing line of the building provides access from and into the rear of the home, and directly services a number of emergency exits. I have spoken with an active firefighter and in the event of a fire, this is the likely route that the firefighters would take to access the property.
The proposed new line of the building reduces the available space from 4.5 metres to 1 metre alongside the hedge. Whilst you can just about get a single wheelchair through that space to safely access the footpath in an emergency, you would struggle to get a bed through it, and it would be one way traffic only.
Equally concerning is the reduction of the footpath in front of the main entrance from 2.25 metres to just 35 centimetres. There is no way that an able bodied person can safely navigate from the main entrance to the public footpath serving the home without walking onto the public highway. If vehicles continue to park there then there will be no access at all. Even if a wheelchair user were able to park safely within the limited Ashdowne car park, they would still need to access the main entrance via the public highway as the existing off road access would be removed by the location of new roof support pillars. During an active emergency up to 60 vulnerable residents will need to be left on the public road and footpaths amongst fire engines, ambulances and other large vehicles as there would be no safe space to hold them. My question is – have the applicant and the committee considered the safety concerns created by removing the egress route along the east of the site?
The Chairman read a statement from Mr and Mrs Roberts again referring to Ashdowne Care Home: This proposal creates additional office space. The applicant’s builders are currently on site and I have been told they are building out new amenity space. In the implications report the officer writes that the recently provided floor plans demonstrate the building has no space for further internal development. Yet surely if space can be found for new amenity usage, a small portacabin sized space can be found for office or administration needs?
Can you commit to removing the portacabin on the car park that has long exceeded its temporary planning permission (and any enforcement action). I understand it is being used as office space. It should be possible to accommodate it internally alongside all these new bedrooms and amenity space being created over the past few years.
The Chairman read a statement from Mrs Wood again referring to Ashdowne Care Home: she thanked the officers for answering the questions about the CEMP (Construction Environment Management Plan) when this was last before the committee on 3 November. Sadly, I remain wholly unconvinced at the applicant’s ability to meet the requirement such a plan would impose, nor of this planning authority’s ability to enforce them given the likely 6-8 week development period needed and the public interest test.
My concerns are based on the past activities of the applicant and their construction contractors who have shown poor regard for mitigating disruption to the public highway and neighbouring residents; and that the only effective enforcement remedy available to the council is to ask for any deviation to be stopped. By the time any action is issued, and representations and appeals discussed, the works will be complete and the CEMP could be proven worthless and a waste of many good officers time.
I do appreciate that scenario is entirely conjecture at this point, and I dearly hope that should the application be approved then the applicant will work diligently to follow the CEMP – and ensure their contractors do too. However, even over the last few weeks since the committee meeting on 3 November, the applicant has instructed construction works on the site and allowed the contractors to double park on the public highway fully blocking the turning head. At the same time as the applicant’s agent was sending emails to your officers disputing the sanity of this committee, the applicant’s contractors were actively engaging in the very activities that the CEMP would aim to prevent. It would appear they care the same for this committee as they do the residents.
My question is perhaps better asked to the officers rather than the committee members – what realistic enforcement actions would you be able to take to ensure compliance with an agreed CEMP and what are the timescales involved?
The Chairman read a statement from Mrs Day again referring to Ashdowne Care Home: after it was clear the original planning application with additional bedrooms was going to be refused, the applicant and their agent delayed and submitted revised plans removing the bedrooms. The applicant has indicated that the kitchen that would be extended is a secondary serving room rather than a full kitchen where the additional space would be productive. The office area is reconfigured but largely of a similar volume and the covid secure visiting pod could easily be sited internally by extending the lobby back to the existing store room. The only productive space being created by this proposal is the treatment room. Can the officers please confirm how they will ensure the proposed condition to prevent the use of this new room as a future bedroom will be enforced more rigorously than the temporary planning permission for the now permanent portacabin was?
Mrs Jenner again referring to Ashdowne Care Home stated that on the most recent care home floor plans sent by the agent to your officers, you will see that the dining room has been cut in half with two large bedrooms created in that space (labelled bedrooms 12 and 13). These do not appear on previous plans and have sprung up alongside the original application being revisited to remove any bedrooms.
Whilst it is within the rights of the applicant to repurpose and redevelop the existing property as they see fit (at least as regards the planning process) it does appear that these changes might have been made after the understanding that permission to create those same bedrooms in the new building would be refused.
I understand that your officers have proposed a condition that no part of the new building can be used as a bedroom in the future. However, this is a business that only makes money from bedrooms, these alterations need to be paid for.
My question is – given that you have indicated you cannot set any conditions on the use of the existing property, and given the recent history of development on the site gets around such conditions (intentionally or otherwise), how can you prevent the new treatment room being turned into a lounge or dining room area and the equivalent space elsewhere on the site being converted into yet another two bedrooms?
The Vice Chairman read a statement from Mr Wood again referring to Ashdowne Care Home: At the last meeting on 3 November, the residents handed in two petitions in objection to the Ashdowne Care Home application. Please can the Chairman confirm he has received these petitions and if not ask members services to make them available.
The Chairman confirmed that the petitions had been received alongside a document received that day.
The Chairman announced that answers to the questions would be provided when the item was discussed.