Skip to main content

Agenda item

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (0.03.39)

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:

Paul Elstone, referring to item 1 on the plans list provided the following questions which were read out by the chairman:

 

QUESTION 1

Are the Committee Members aware that Redrow’s in their application are proposing only to provide 2-meter-wide pavements either side of the spur road? No separate provisions for cyclist or on street parking. This despite the Tiverton EUE Design Guide requiring very different.

.

QUESTION 2

Why are Redrow Homes plus MDDC Officers not giving full consideration to the safety of the pedestrians and in particularly primary school children who will access the 420-place primary school?

 

While the school may not be built for several years all associated roads, pavements and cycleways should be future proofed.

 

QUESTION 3

The Planning Meeting Briefing Paper Paragraph 4.5 states that MDDC Officers consider that the Redrow Application is in compliance with the Adopted Tiverton EUE Masterplan and Tiverton EUE Design Guide.

 

The MDDC Adopted TEUE Design Guide actually says and shows something completely different to what Redrow’s are proposing. The Design Guide expects segregated cycle and pedestrian pavements on either side of the road plus on street parking provision and again on either side of the road?

 

QUESTION 4

Have all Planning Committee Members seen the Redrow Phase 2 Urban Design and Architectural Principles drawing for Phase 2 of the Spine Road?

 

This drawing shows on road parking and 2- and 3-meters pavements segregated from the road including one for shared pedestrian and cycle use and tree planting. As a minimum why are Redrow’s not in compliance?

 

QUESTION 5

Are Committee Members aware that the UDAP drawing formed the basis of the Design Review Panel consultation and even then, the Design Review Panel have been repeatedly critical of the Redrow proposals?

 

QUESTION 6

Are ALL Committee Members aware that Redrow Homes stated at the recent UDAP Workshop that they did not need to submit this application to get the 2nd Phase of the Spine Road built? This as it was required to access a storage yard, office compound and workforce car parking for Phase 1 which had already received approval as part of the Redrow Construction and Management Plan.

Something reinforced in a Redrow email only 2 days ago.

 

QUESTION 7

Are Committee Members minded to ONLY approve the 6.5-meter-wide roadway and for Redrow’s to use as a haul way to their Phase 1 storage area, offices and car park? This to allow Redrow’s to build the approved Phase 1 development.

 

QUESTION 8.

Are Committee Members minded to require that Redrow’s submit their plans for the on-street parking, segregated pavements and cycle ways as part of the Planning Application for the Phase 2 housing development? An application that is imminent. That to do otherwise would seriously compromise the Phase 2 Development Design and the overall Tiverton EUE Development.

 

Terence Payne, referring to item 3 on the plans list stated:

 

I am sure that Members will be aware that this is a very contentious issue in Halberton with a record number of objections from the people who have indicated their objections or support on the portal. That totals more than 96% and we’ve never had that many people before objecting to anything. You would get a higher percentage if you counted the people rather than the letters. The main objections were as you would have seen in the documentation about the over development of the site and particularly the need therefore for houses and dwellings too near the banks of the pond. The Halberton Action Group that I represent feels strongly that developing the site is a good thing, we are not against the development but we are particularly against this proposal because of endangering the wildlife, the ecology and water pollution. There are other issues as well. My question is, before the application is considered by the Planning Committee wouldn’t it be a good idea for Members to hold a site visit, including viewing the pond from the High Street side or the garden of the Priory, so that they can see what impact the proposal and particularly the siting of dwellings 7, 8 & 9 too close to Halberton Pond would have on the ecology of this most environmentally sensitive part of Halberton’s Conservation area which includes the hub of the wildlife habitat there.

 

Heather Corden also referring to item 3 on the plans list stated:

 

I am one of the Church Wardens at St Andrews Church and the development will go to the side of the church yard. At the moment the buildings in Halberton Court are becoming derelict and run down and the view from the church yard into the village has this dereliction in front of it. Way before this came to consultation level the plans for this and the proposal came through Diocese and the PCC and we approved it from the outset as it was going to improve the outlook from the village and improve the vicinity of the church yard. Nothing in the church yard was going to be touched, it was just going to improve things for us. At the time we were hoping to get a car park the other side of the farm wall but that has subsequently gone. We would just like to say that the Diocese and Halberton PCC are totally behind this plan.