Agenda item

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.

Hannah Kearnes, a local resident, referring to no1 on the plans list provided the following questions which were read out by the Vice Chairman.

QUESTION 1

Why does the application submitted by MDDC fail to comply with Building Regulations 2021 Part O – Overheating? This is a regulation that is intended to provide protection to both young children and the medically vulnerable and which recognises both the impacts and subsequent risk of global warming.

QUESTION 2

Why does the application submitted by MDDC fail to comply with Building Regulations 2021 Part L - Thermal Efficiency? Specifically why does the application not provide the required full range of thermal efficiency calculations or detailed information on thermal bridging reduction?

QUESTION 3

Why is there a requirement for ALL widows on the rear and side elevations overlooking existing properties, gardens and green spaces, to be frosted or the views obliterated with 1.7 meter high frosted screens? Is it not agreed that this requirement seriously impact the new modular home’s residents living conditions and well-being?

QUESTION 4

Are Planning Officers and Members aware that there is an increasing concern about the fire and safety risk of modular homes, in particular multi-story constructions? Are they aware of the fact that in 2020, a 2 story high modular built accommodation unit burnt down very rapidly? The full circumstances are still being investigated with the potential of legal action being taken. Fire experts amongst others are now even suggesting that modular built multi accommodation units are the next Grenfell Tower waiting to happen.

QUESTION 5

Have MDDC as the “Responsible Entity”undertaken checks on the fire safety design with independent experts including the Devon and Somerset Fire Service, rather than just relying on ZED PODS providing a materials statement etc?

It is understood that the Somerset Fire Service may already have concerns about modular build fire safety.

QUESTION 6

Having regard to my previous question on fire safety, this question is asked given that the proposed modular development will have 20 car parking spaces beneath it.

Are Planning Officers and Members aware of the reported findings of the very serious multi-story car park fire that occurred in Liverpool in 2018 in which 1400 cars were destroyed? Are they aware of the cause of the fire and the fire spread pattern and the speed of the fire spread?

Mr Paul Elstone, a local resident, referring to No 2 on the plans list provided the following question which were read out by the Vice Chairman:

QUESTION 1
Can the Planning Officers please explain why the locations of the Self Build Home Sewage and Drainage Lines are NOW being determined This despite the Self Build Homes themselves being and as stated the subject of a future Reserved Matters Planning Application.

QUESTION 2
Why are the Planning Officers justifying recommending this application for approval yet effectively saying that the drainage and sewage lines are solely being installed by Redrow Homes as part of a contractual agreement with the Landowner i.e. the Chettiscombe Estate and in respect of the Landowners future plans.

QUESTION 3
Why are the Planning Officers apparently justifying the location of the Sewage and Drainage Lines based the Self Build Homes having driveway access onto Blundells Road?

QUESTION 4
Are the Committee Members aware that should Redrow Homes be permitted to use all the road access points to their building development as they have applied for there will be a total of 6 separate points yes 6 access points and all within 400 meters of each other.

Each access point would be joining an increasingly busy arterial road with bad safety records.

QUESTION 5
Given serious road safety concerns will the MDDC Area Planning Officer confirm that Redrow Homes will not use the access point opposite Long Meadow on Blundells Road for construction traffic access for the Attenuation Pond and to install the various drainage and sewer pipelines.

This in full recognition that there is a totally suitable and far safer access point already available off the new Linking Road to the north of Blundells Road.

Very importantly an access point which would run across the field owned by the Landowner i.e., the Chettiscombe Estate and therefore easily get approval given they want the work done. Surely this cannot be permitted and for very sound, justifiable and well proven road safety reasons?

QUESTION 6
Will the MDDC Planning Officers confirm that they will not give permission and as requested in Redrow’s Condition 14 Aapplication for the entrance opposite Long Meadow on Blundells Road or be permitted to use West Manley Lane solely to create to a building development storage areas, workers car parking or for site office buildings.

This in full consideration that there is already a safer and more suitable access point available from the newly constructed Linking Road to the north of
Blundells Road. And the spur road to the South.

This in full consideration that there is already a far more suitable and safe access point from the newly constructed Spur Road to the south of Blundells
Road available and already in use.

Also, in full recognition that Redrow Homes have acquired more land from the Chettiscombe Estate allowing the far safer location of the storage areas etc.

The Vice Chairman indicated that the answers would be provided when the application was considered.