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:
Prior to questions being asked the Chairman sought advice which was expanded upon by the Interim Monitoring Officer with regard to the content of public statements and questions.
1. Hayley Keary, referring to No 1 on the Plans list asked:
I’m Hayley Keary, 44 Higher Town heritage asset on the north east of the site.
Your poor land levels means the windows of our home can easily be overlooked from the site. The committee has not seen the situation from inside the home but did accept the problem last time. I’ll ask my question and just put a little bit of context afterwards. So, my question is to the officers and the councillors. If you are minded to approve this application, will you please reinstate condition 7 which was before you on the 29th June, to ensure the wording allows for land levels to be changed? Chair, please will you make sure this is discussed during this meeting?
Since June the applicant has removed trees from land opposite 42 and 46 which is helpful, but more is needed. In June the officer confirmed to you that condition 7 would allow the cycle way beside the site would be lowered. To lower the path to match the email that the officer sent us, which where he says, and I quote.
The question, which I’ve just said, is if you are minded to approve this application, will you please reinstate condition 7, that was before you on the 29th June, to ensure the wording allows for land levels to be changed?.
2. Stewart Smith, also referring to No 1 on the Plans list asked:
My name is Stewart Smith and I live at 13d, adjacent to the sites eastern boundary. It is the nearest property to any of the plots on the site.
In an illustrated plan at the Inquiry, the nearest proposed dwelling to my property was 45 metres away, with a wide green buffer zone between.
In a plan used for the community consultation, this had reduced to 25 metres. In the plans before you today, the boundary of this nearest new building is just 15 metres away, and the green buffer zone by our garden fence has shrunk to a laughable half metre.
I’ve sent the councillors an email and diagram showing a sections views through the applicant’s plans of 37, which proves that the residents of plot 37 would have clear line of sight into the floor to ceiling windows of my home.
Worse still, the new dwelling on plot 36 is even higher up the slope. A full two metres higher than my property, you may wish to have a look yourselves. In 2017, my bungalow was built. The planning inspector then ruled various major changes had to be made to the heights and proposed plans to ensure that the development would not harm the privacy of gardens numbers 42 and numbers 44 Higher Town. So, why on earth are the proposed buildings being allowed to look over me? Not just our garden, but the actual living room windows into my home.
If plots 36 and 37 cannot be removed from the plan, then we want the application refused. Alternatively, we want those plots to be lowered by at least half a metre. Incidentally, when I queried the sites slope and height, the applicant’s representative told me that altering the height of the site is costly. Really? Your policy, DM1, is supposed to ensure that new dwellings do not have an adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties. This plan does not comply.
My final point is that the application’s boundary layout plan shows the fencing on the eastern boundary promises that details are all to be agreed with adjacent home owners. That has not been complete, and has not happened.
My question:
‘Councillors, if you’re minded to approve this awful, flawed application, will you please add a condition to lower plots 36 and 37, and another to require boundary details to be agreed with all adjacent neighbours before building commences?‘
Chair, please will you ensure the conditions to this effect are formally considered by the committee before any vote to approve the application is taken.
3. Greta Tucker, again referring to No 1 on the Plans list asked:
My name is Greta Tucker, I’m a resident of Sampford Peverell. My question concerns access to the village for pedestrians. Since June, the 30 steps at the South East have been removed and a new path has been added to the south of the allotments. We are told these changes should address your concerns over disabled access. So, if I live at the South of the village development and I want to catch a bus, or make my way to the village shop with my wheelchair using friend, here is what we must do. Make our way along the South until we are almost at the South East access. We can see it clearly, it is just ten metres away. But, over three metres below us. We cannot follow our desired line. So, we turn North away from the access and head up the steep road. It has no footpath beside it, it is a shared surface. I watch and listen carefully for cars, as my friend struggles to get her wheelchair up the 8% gradient, just where we approach the allotments. We turn onto the path. It is made of gravel and clay, and the wheelchair wheels do not cope easily, especially if it has been raining and the surfaces become muddy. At the end, it joins the shared cycleway. We look carefully to the left. There is a bend just 13 metres away. Cyclists speeding down the 7% slope and around the bend cannot see us behind the hedges of the allotments. Now we make our way south down the cycleway but we can’t go side by side. We must leave room for those cyclists, and it is only 2.5 metres wide even though we know the guidance says it should be wider. After another 60 metres we’ve finally reached the south east access itself, but this is where we really have to be careful as the slope of the path here, on a tight, blind bend, is steeper than anywhere on the whole site. We don’t want the wheelchair to run out of control to Turnpike where most traffic has been recorded as moving at 44mph. There is no 30mph limit here. Now we can cross the road and move on to the bus stop or to the village shop. I have two questions:
1 – To the officer – which part of the steep, awkward and dangerous detour to reach the south east access most closely matches your policy DM1, for high quality design? This is a serious question, please don’t evade it. Please refer to specific design features when you respond.
2 – To the councillors – The local highway authority accepts that part of the pedestrian routes within the site may not meet national guidance, and has said that. You will wish to take these matters into account in the overall planning balance. The plans do not provide safe and suitable access for all. They do not encourage sustainable travel. They do not improve access to the village for pedestrians. Councillors, will you please reject the plans as they stand?
4. Gerald Dinnage, referring to No 1 on the Plans list asked:
I am Gerald Dinnage of Sampford Peverell.
On page 45 of the Report Pack, the officer says that ‘... drainage and flood risk have been fully considered’.
This is not true.
New drainage plans appeared in May and July – but the Devon Flood Team has not sent an official response since April.
Condition 18 says that the drainage design must be informed by percolation tests.
These measure how well water drains into the ground.
But the Committee Report never even mentions Condition 18.
New data about Condition 18 was published on the outline application page just days ago, on 9th August. It confirms that expert engineers Hydrock ran percolation tests at the site in 2017.
Hydrock reported that none of the test pits managed to drain the required three times. In line with national guidance, Hydrock warned that this means that the test results ‘... should not be used for design purposes’. Hydrock made no exceptions and left no ambiguity. This is new information.
In 2021, Hydrock worked with South West Geotechnical. They ran a second set of infiltration tests.
These also failed for the same reason.
In July 2022, the applicant submitted a design for a filter drain beside the cycleway. The text beside the drawing says that its design is based on the second set of failed test results.
Lastly, the applicant promised that footpaths (plural) will have filter drains. Only one drain appears in July’s new plans.
My questions to the officer are:
Has the cycleway filter drain been designed using data from incomplete tests, against the clear warning from Hydrock that such data should not be used for design purposes?
In your report published online for this Committee Meeting:-
a) Do you inform Members that Condition 18 has not been discharged?
b) Do you inform Members that the Flood Team has not responded on any plans submitted since April?
c) Do you tell Members that the plans include only one pathway drain?
d) Residents raised drainage concerns during the July consultation. Does your Report’s summary of July objections even mention drainage?
So, will you please amend the statement you make on page 45 of the Report so that it reads - ‘Drainage and flood risk have NOT been fully considered’
5. Paul Elstone, referring to item 10 on the agenda had the following read out by the Chairman and asked:
a) Planning Enforcement Table 2.2 Shows 2 separate line entries for Breach of Condition 171. Was it intended that one line refers to Section 171 A breaches i.e. related to carrying out development without the required planning permission or failing to comply with any condition. That was it intended that the second line refers to Section s 171 B i.e. breach of planning control such as change in use of a building without planning permission etc.
b) “The following table shows stats for enforcement cases over the past few months” What specifically is the period covered. Which calendar months and for which year.
c) The text of the Planning Report Section 2 Enforcement says the following: “Cases outstanding include 334 of which 174 are pre-2022, these are being worked on. Many may not be high priority and can be cleared”. Can the MDDC Development Manager please fully explain what “High Priority” means in MDDC planning enforcement terms?
d) Can it be explained why lower priority enforcement cases can apparently be so easily cleared?
e) Of the 41 Enforcement Cases shown as closed out in Table 2 how many of these were classed as “high priority”?
f) Did any of the 41 enforcement cases that have been closed out relate to Anaerobic Digesters or associated Silage or Digestate Clamps?
g) How many of the 334 cases outstanding relate to Anaerobic Digesters, or associated Silage or Digestate storage clamps and are deemed “high priority”?
h) How many of the 334 cases outstanding are considered as “high priority”?
i) How many of the 334 cases outstanding are within 12 months of the expiry date permitting enforcement action to be taken?
j) How many retrospective planning applications have been received over the last year and how many of these have so far been refused?
6. Stephen Hirst, referring to No 1 on the Plans list sent in a question which was read out by the Chairman and asked:
I am Stephen Hirst. I live at 42 Higher Town the listed building at the north-east of the site.
Page 38 of the Public Report Pack tells you that ‘the formal LEAP has been moved and altered to less formal play equipment integrated into the landscape alongside the cycleway proposed’.
The fence has gone but there are still six items of play apparatus at the north-east. That is exactly the same as it was in the June plans.
The equipment is fixed on the Green Infrastructure that was added to limit impact on the setting of the Grade 2 listed building where I live. Unlike the path, it does not have to be there. It adds to the harmful impact. Anyone can see that.
It is ridiculous to say that this is ‘less formal play equipment’. It is play equipment and it is permanently fixed. The nearest is only half a metre further away from my garden than it was in the previous plans.
Noise will still be a problem – taking away a fence does nothing about that.
We still do not have designs for what equipment will go where and how high it will be. You are supposed to check these things before giving approval.
And what about the risks of having this play equipment either side of a cycleway? It invites children to run across from one side to another.
The equipment is within 12 metres of a window in the new bungalow near us. Last time the officer said it all had be 20 metres away.
My question is -
Councillors – Please will you refuse this application or at the very least remove all play equipment from the green infrastructure?
The Chairman advised that questions would be answered during the presentations apart from Mr Elstone who would receive a written reply.