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.

Paul Elstone a local resident referring to item 8 on the agenda asked:

Question 1:

The briefing note state that 3 Rivers have advised MDDC Officer that 3 Rivers own the full site having purchased from the owners in the entirety. That a section of the land immediately adjacent to the river as with possessory title.

Have MDDC Officers including solicitors carried out any due diligence on this statement?

Planning Law it is understood requires the applicant to either own the land or have permission from the rightful owner on which he wishes to build.

It is strongly considered that the owners and who operate a commercial business very close to the Memorial Hall did not have either possessory title rights or adverse possession rights.

Possession title rights requiring the following criteria:

·         Have possessed the land to the exclusion of anyone else

·         Have shown an interest in the land by fencing it off and performing maintenance

The sellers did not meet either of these criteria, something that would have been clearly evident during any site visit.

There is good reason to believe the residents whose properties back onto this plot of land or the residents of Ham Place or the residents of Tiverton have a claim over this plot. This given the lands former use.

Question 2:

Why are 3 Rivers being given preferential treatment in planning terms compared to other developers and private applicants?

This when not submitting revised drawings for approval by Planning officers. Changes which are significant including material planning approval changes.

Drawings which formed the basis of the original planning application.

Provision of an access road to new parking spaces requiring the removal of a cycle store.

Very substantial changes to underground parking provision.

Major changes to retaining walls. Something used by the Cabinet Member for Finance to justify significant project overspends and yesterday’s Cabinet meeting.

Question 3:

3 Rivers are using the justification that they have lost 8 parking spaces requiring these additional 10 parking spaces has the MDDC Planning officer carried out any due diligence on this claim.

Question 4:

Why are 3 Rivers stating they have lost 8 parking spaces when they have actually only lost 5? Seems a problem with the maths.

Even then there is a question why they have lost 2 spaces for provision for electric charging points.

Why can electric charging points be fitted on the walls in the Phoenix House multi storey car park and using standard parking bays yet 3 Rivers state they need long spaces reducing available spaces from 5 to 3

Question 5:

It is noted that 3 Rivers just 8 days ago submitted an application for a modification to the underground car park ventilation system. Condition 2.

Increasing ventilation they estimate from 30 to 80%.

Given the very close proximity of the Memorial Hall Social Club open space and the chimney effect of the retaining walls has the environmental and health impacts been considered.

Jamie Byrom a local resident stated:

I am Jamie Byrom of Sampford Peverell.

My questions concern Agenda Item 4, the Minutes of the meeting of 24 August.

I speak on behalf of all those who came here to put questions to this Committee on that day.  Posing a question here is no small thing.  People often need to go well beyond their comfort zones to do this.  They do it with the sincere aim of drawing attention to something important that Members and officers may have failed to grasp from the mass of documents online.  It is their one opportunity to show in person how paper proposals will affect their own lives, sometimes very deeply.

In asking my questions today, I mean no disrespect to the Member Services Officer who drafts the minutes and whose work is so important to this Committee.

My five questions are to all those Members present on 24 August.  They address only some of my concerns about the minutes - what they say and what they do not say.  I have passed a copy to the Chair so you can ask him to remind you of their wording when you reach Item 4 of your agenda today, should you wish.

Question 1 – In Public Question Time, the first questioner was Hayley Keary.  She said barely one third of what she had hoped to say.  Do the minutes accurately record this?

Question 2 – The Chair interrupted Miss Keary in mid-sentence, after she had been speaking for just under one minute.  He stopped her just before she was going to quote an email from the officer.  Do the minutes accurately record this?

Question 3 – Several interventions were needed before the Chair’s misinterpretation of the constitution and its protocols was corrected.  Do the minutes accurately record this?

Question 4 – Under section 48 of the minutes, (‘Declarations of Interest’), is the text in the first paragraph an accurate record of declarations that were made over the Higher Town application? (22/00040/MARM).

Question 5 - More generally, with an eye to future practice, I note that the minutes helpfully try to give a verbatim record of questions raised in Public Question Time.  In future, where a question is directed to an officer, please will you, out of respect for the public, require that the officer’s specific reply to each specific question raised in Public Question Time must be clearly recorded as such in the minutes?  Perhaps a table showing the officer’s answer – or absence of answer - alongside each question would help?  This will encourage a culture of officers giving direct answers to direct questions and, yes, it may also sharpen and shorten the questions raised by the public.  If this cannot be decided here today, please move to such a system in the very near future.

Thank you.  I look forward to observing how these questions are addressed when you discuss Agenda Item 4. 

The Chairman advised that the questions would be addressed when the item was discussed.