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:
The Chairman read a set of questions from Mrs Bingham referring to Item 6 (application 21/00454/MARM) on the agenda:
Why are Redrow Homes being allowed to place 20 properties against the boundary of the existing 10 Blundell’s Road properties, which is a ratio of 2-to-1 and yet David Wilson placed only 11 properties against the 14 existing properties at The Fairway - a ratio of 0.8?
Why are Redrow Homes being allowed to present that there are no amenity impacts by having this higher density housing against the existing 10 Blundell's Road properties?
Why are Redrow Homes only providing 2 bungalows when there is a pressing requirement for more bungalows in Tiverton?
The Chairman also read a set of questions from Hannah Kearns with regard to the same application:
How can it be justified for the Planning Officer to state “that Members also noted ongoing concern in relation to road safety? However, road crossings on Blundells Road/Linking Road Spine Road lie outside the parameters of this Reserved Matters application”. The matter of road safety surely cannot simply be dismissed in this manner?
If road safety matters cannot be discussed by Planning Committee Members in relation to this application, then when have they been discussed in the past, or when will they be in the future?
Why are Redrow Homes being allowed to totally ignore the road safety concerns highlighted by the belatedly formed Specialist Design Review Panel?
Why have Redrow Homes been allowed to totally remove the fully segregated off road cycle lanes either side of the Linking Road and Spur Road?
Why are Redrow Homes being allowed to totally remove the Green Boulevard to the north of Blundells Road i.e. the Linking Road?
Mr Salter referring to the same application and referring to an email written by the Cabinet Member for Planning with regard to the Ministerial Statement of 22 November 2021 with regard to the provision of EV charging and stating that despite this statement it is observed that Redrow Homes are only intending to install working charging points to market homes, and only ducting, with no cables to affordable homes.Can the Planning Officers please explain what has changed, and. why do Redrow Homes appear to be discriminating against Affordable Home owners?
Again referring to the Ministerial Statement or a change in policy he asked: as the policy has changed will the Planning Committee now give material consideration to the fact that Redrow Homes are not providing active charging points to all, irrespective of tenure?
Referring to the approved revised Building Regulation L – Conservation – Fuel and Power which would come into effect in June 2022: Do the Redrow Homes already meet this standard, and do Redrow Homes currently meet all the other revised standards in the new Regulation Part L?
Given that Redrow Homes have stated in a separate document that they do not expect completion of this first phase of the Tiverton EUE Development until 2026, is this just one more material consideration for the Planning Committee Members to consider?
Mr Elstone again referring to Item 6 on the agenda asked the following questions:
Why did the MDDC Area Planning Officer in an email, dated 9 December 2020 say she felt both pressured and backed into a corner to sign off on the key Urban Design and Architectural Principles Document?
Why did the MDDC Area Planning officer send an email on the same day as signing off the UDAP stating the importance of the urgent sign off of the document?
Why did MDDC Planning Officers allow Redrow Homes to totally ignore the prerequisite and prescribed requirement to consult with the stakeholders and the general public at the key UDAP stage of the masterplan design process?
Why did MDDC Planning Officers allow Redrow Homes to totally ignore the prerequisite and prescribed requirement to engage with the important external and specialist Design Review Panel prior to submission of their reserved matters application?
Why did MDDC Planning Officers allow Redrow Homes to totally ignore even their own UDAP flow chart requiring them to engage with the Design Review Panel prior to the submission of the reserved matters application?
Why did it take the persistence of a member of the general public and not the MDDC Planning Officers to make Redrow Homes even engage in a Design Review Panel despite it being far too late in the process?
Why did MDDC Planning Officers not intervene when the Design Review Panel had been given to believe that the UDAP document was an MDDC protected document when it was not?
Why did MDDC Planning Officers say in an email that the MDDC Ward Councillors had been consulted about the UDAP prior to sign off?
Why did the MDDC officers not intervene when the Design Review Panel were critical in being introduced into the design process very late and therefore again felt restricted in the comments it could make?
Why did the Planning Officer not intervene when the Design Review Panel primarily restricted themselves to looking at the development to the south of Blundells Road and with consequential results for the north?
Are the committee aware that the former Head of Planning participated in a video which is available on You-Tube in which she extols the importance of Design Review Panels?
Why did Redrow Homes say they had consulted with Post Hill residents when they only sent a letter to a few properties and only after submitting the reserved matters application?
Sir David Jephcott again referring the same application spoke about the high density centre of the application from the centre to the edge and asked why had Redrow been allowed to locate the largest density by the school and put their show home there? Why was Redrow allowed to overturn the centre to edge policy by having high density on the Spur Road?
Mrs Seaton again referring the item 6 on the agenda asked whether committee members were aware that Redrow Developments have already submitted a Condition 14 application which shows both their proposed phasing and end build date for their development proposals? Were Members aware that in this Redrow are trying to totally overturn the original phasing plans by first building to the south of Blundells Road as opposed to the north? Were Members aware that should Redrow Homes, Condition 14 be approved, they will be permitted to make another two entrances to Blundells Road, one to the north and one to the south being the use of West Manley Lane, for heavy vehicles, creating noise, disturbance and further traffic problems on a stretch of road which has suffered at least 4 road fatalities to my knowledge? Also were Members aware that if this Condition 14 application is approved and allows Redrow to use West Manley Lane as a heavy goods and workers entrance existing residents would be surrounded?
Emma Way again referring to item 6 on the agenda asked the following questions:
Why is the applicant permitted to cut back branch canopies of oak trees which are over 200 years old and which have TPO’s?
Why is the applicant being permitted to build over the tree root protection zone of a tree over 100 years plus and subject to a TPO?
Are you aware that the applicant’s arboriculture report states that the root protection zone need only be 8 metres when according to standards it is closer to 12?
Why is the applicant not providing EV charging points to all homes particularly in the light of imminent changes of legislation?
Please explain why the applicant is only installing ducting and not cabling for everyone and does this discriminate against the affordable homes occupants?
Why is the applicant not following the example of the recently approved Willand development which will have electrical vehicle charging points installed for all affordable homes from day 1?
Why has the applicant chosen to site the playground right on a ferociously busy main road spur with a busy T junction leading to other houses and the car park of a possible care home?
Is this truly the best outcome for the initial phase of the EUE Plan? Will this set the bench mark?
Separate to the public questions, but with the agreement of the Chairman, Cllr B Holdman asked the following questions:
Regarding the S9 Policy, can we have more mature trees if those have to be taken out and can we have more than 1 like for like replacement?
Regards to Policy S2, will all houses have heat source pumps?
Regarding Policy SP2, I am concerned about the mix of housing, we do not have enough bungalows or social housing for the needs of the community, how will you address this?
The Chairman indicated that answers to questions would be provided when the application was considered.