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 following members of the public attended the meeting to ask questions in relation to the Creedy Bridge application:
Liz Goodman stated that Crediton RFC is one of the largest Community Clubs in Devon, 500 members and 18 teams including Walking Rugby along with a school holiday Club and a preschool Saturday morning Club.
We want and need to relocate. Ouroutgrown current site is allocated for housing.
An ageing Clubhouse with insufficient changing rooms for the safeguarding safety of our young people. A small Club car park means road parking, a dangerous hazard and a welfare concern, for children crossing.
Training nearly every night of the week and matches Saturday’s and Sunday’s for up to 18 teams and opposition teams along with spectators. Our season ends in April/May and pre-season starts in July. Hence a ball strike assessment is necessary.
Although we are grateful for our inclusion in the new Lidl store site deal, formally our leased pitch, we have not received any of the Section 106 funding. We are struggling for playing & training spaces and rely on hiring match day pitches without changing & toilet facilities.
The reserve matters application is being discussed today for Bellway, who now own our relocation land.
We requested that our allocated land be offered to us on Grant of Consent, this was ignored. We provided Bellway with a RICS valuation and the Council confirmed to them, we were the Nominee. For over 12 months we have tried but Bellway and the still involved previous landowner’s agent have refused to negotiate outside of the Section 106. This lack of Community spirit and willingness to engage is alarming. Do they have another agenda?
The relocation of the Club is within the Councils own adopted Playing Pitch Strategy and Local Plan. We would love to be the Nominee but are concerned if the Reserved Matters are approved as proposed, the details in it won’t enable a satisfactory relocation site to be provided. That would mean CRFC can’t vacate their current site, and the current Development Plan for Crediton will, in part, fail.
Other concerns for our members’ safety, will there be a pedestrian crossing to access our training pitch opposite the relocation site? Will the 30 MPH limit be extended to the end of the relocation site?
The rugby Club could not afford to pay into any management or maintenance company set up by the developer for the upkeep of the housing estate.
All the money that Crediton Rugby Club produces goes immediately back into the local economy. It enhances community spirit and cohesion, promotes widespread physical & mental health.
We really do need and want to move but we feel we have not been consulted throughout this entire process. Many of our members and members of our local Community supported the outline application for the housing development back in 2008. We expected the promised workable relocation site to be presented to the Rugby Club, not one that has since been changed by the developers, now they have achieved their ends.
How can this application be approved when there are several matters, those I mention here, along with questions my colleagues will raise shortly. Sport England, the RFU and Crediton Rugby Club have all raised responses to planning matters that have not been sufficiently addressed and the negative outcomes of them considered.
All I ask is that our Crediton Community and Crediton Rugby Club, one of your largest Community groups in Devon, gets what it needs and so deserves. We must support the young people of Crediton and the wider Community we serve.
Edward Trick, also from Crediton Rugby Club, stated that MDDC Policy and the outlined consent is to “Safeguard 8.6 hectares for the relocation of Crediton Rugby Club”. By introducing the maintenance corridor, increasing and enhancing the size of the ditch and adding the footpaths, have they failed to safeguard the land and therefore, are they in breach of their own policy and outlined consent?
The surface water run off for 257 houses and roads will run directly into an attenuation pond positioned three meters away from one of our pitches and then right through the middle of our site in a drainage ditch. How will we keep our pitches dry? Flood risk reports use lots of complicated calculations, but its a fact - water runs downhill! Why not run a new ditch directly to the river avoiding the Rugby Club? Where will the overflow from the pond go? Who will maintain the ditch? Leaving a maintenance corridor large enough for a digger will mean the pitch layout won’t fit therefore the whole scheme is no longer Policy Compliant. Health & Safety for children collecting balls from the ditch will be an issue, will it need to be fenced? Who will pay for this? The club highlighted this as an objection during this application and the previous outline application but once again we have been ignored.
The drainage system to be compliant with Sport England and the RFU’s standards will be very expensive. Sport England and us have officially objected to the application on the grounds of the flood risk strategy. We give notice and please minute this, that we will seek compensation for any damage to the pitches and our infrastructure from excess water in the future.
Does the applicant’s drainage scheme jeopardize the PSD report that demonstrated 4 pitches could be sufficiently constructed at the site? The PSD report helped inform the RFU and Sport England’s comments to the previous application. If the drainage scheme does jeopardize the PSD report and thus the viability of constructing 4 pitches at the site Sport England and the RFU would find it hard to support a further application. Does the above in turn also jeopardize this site as the intended location to construct the LIDL replacement pitch as per the condition to planning application the Council are yet to deliver?
The proposed location of the public footpath poses health risks of dog fouling on playing pitches, promotes trespassing of the public onto playing pitches resulting in a large and expensive fence to erect to keep our players and the public safe and to maintain the vital gate income on match days.
The proposed location of paths would be against the dead ball area of the rugby pitch. The rugby pitch configuration and dimensions are as per World Rugby Law 1, adopted by the RFU, which states the need for a minimum 5m run off around the full perimeter of the pitch. These dimensions are fundamentally based on player and spectator safety, any scheme of works delivered less than this would seriously jeopardize safety at the site. The footpath needs to be re-sited.
No ball strike assessment has been completed as per the original Sport England objection. Due to the proximity of the dwellings to the playing pitches the RFU and Sport England recommended a ball strike assessment be undertaken by the applicant to understand if any safety mitigation is required. Without an assessment how can the applicant be confident the dwellings to the West of the site will be sufficiently protected from stray balls from the rugby pitches and how can the public using the proposed footpath that runs next to the pitch be protected from ball strikes? You have already heard how often we train and play matches. The Rugby Club would accept no liability for any such damage caused and would insist any retrospective mitigation is paid for and maintained by the applicant.
Nick Hasted stated that his question was associated with the aim of reducing the carbon footprint of the estate and reducing energy costs:
How many solar panels are being installed for each home?
What direction will they be facing?
What is their capacity?
What is their estimated reduction in the energy running cost of a home?
John Craythorne asked ‘In relation to the Creedy Bridge application. As far as I can ascertain from your website, there is currently provision for 31 ‘affordable’ rented homes and 21 shared ownership dwellings. Does the council have any powers to require a greater provision than this and if so will it use all its efforts or secure a greater number of affordable homes?
Does the council recognise that what is described as ‘affordable’ is actually not affordable for many people on lower incomes and that for people in those circumstances, a secure tenancy in the social housing sector is often the only means of having a secure, decent and affordable home?
Further, in its review of the local plan will the council ensure that the provision of more social housing to rent will be given absolute priority?’
Caroline Romijn stated….I note that the percentage of “affordable” houses within this development is set at a very low level, disappointing within the context of Mid-Devon’s relatively low-wage economy. It is also extremely concerning that the development does not meet high standards of sustainability. In view of this I would like to ask Mid Devon Council to consider asking the developers to release a further number of “affordable plots” (say 15) for sale as self-builds. Providing 15 plots for Self-Builds would have two significant advantages: firstly it would meet a significant local social and economic need, and secondly it would ensure that at least that number of houses would need to be built to higher, up-to-date standards of sustainability.
Natalia Letch asked the following questions:
Laura Conyngham stated thatCOP 26 group recently learned that, in spite of Mid Devon District Council’s commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030, Section 106 money for this development went on other things. There seems no hope of a FLAT route to Crediton across the A3072, around existing new housing to join the Public Footpath by the Leisure Centre to Morrisons, schools and town. Without this, very few residents will use their legs up and over the hill to reach town within 15 minutes.
In view of this serious failure, will the developer include either air source heat pumps or ground source heat pumps for heating? Along with photo voltaic panels and solar boost, residents could be enjoying free hot water for over half the year. I speak from experience.
Dave Harris informed the Committee that In November 2021 a community event was held in Crediton to discuss and come up with ideas of what Crediton could do in relation to the climate and nature emergencies we face. Some of the ideas the community came up with were, and I quote,:
Public transport – more frequent, reliable, and affordable
How does this development enhance the delivery of more and cheaper public transport?
Cycle paths
Where are they in the plans?
Prioritise pedestrians
Where is the safe pedestrian access to the high street, leisure centre etc?
Planning – not one size fits all
According to the Office for National Statistics in 2021 80% of households had 3 people or less living in them. Why does this development average over 3 bedrooms per property?
Homes are affordable, sustainable, carbon neutral and with proper gardens
This was one of the most wanted items. Is any of this being addressed by the developer?
These items are what the community of Crediton wants and yet this development provides almost none of this. What is democracy for if it is not for listening to the local community and following their clear instructions? This is the acid test of how the democracy in our local area works, for the people, or for the money. Councillors you decide.
Alan Murray asked what is the maximum quantity on the South West Water Environment Agency permit to discharge and the current throughput capacity at Lords Meadow Sewage Works? How many more houses can Lords Meadow Sewage Works cope with without overloading the system? If there is insufficient capacity then what is the plan and timetable from the developer to contribute to an upgrade to improve capacity?
What monitoring is currently being undertaken on discharges from the sewage works into the River Creedy, and at what intervals? Has that been breached and self-reported to the Environment Agency already? In 2021 there were 66 sewage dumps over 431 hours.
Can the developer confirm that a suitable SuDS (Sustainable Drainage
System) will be employed to relieve pressure on the local sewage treatment works and run off into the close by River Creedy? And is there a detailed planting plan and absolutely clear maintenance plan which complies with CIRIA (Construction Industry Research & Information
Association) standards?
Can the developer confirm that rain water storage systems will be included as part of the house design so that stored water can be used for watering gardens, cleaning cars and flushing toilets etc.
With consideration to the objection from the Crediton Rugby Club regarding flooding of the site (Objection filed 03/11/2022 ) what guarantees can the developer make to ensure that rain water run-off from the site does not drain directly into the adjacent River Creedy polluting the river with toxic pollutants and particulates associated with domestic habitation, car use etc.? And is permeable paving being used to reduce run-off?
As this site is very close to the River Creedy can the developer prove that the buildings will be ‘Nutrient Neutral’ which is a legal requirement from Natural England?
Gerald
Conyngham stated that….I am speaking as a member of
COP26 group in Crediton and District. A key aim of our group is to
help MDDC to achieve its target of becoming carbon neutral by
the year 2030. This has particular implications for new
developments which should seek to minimise their
carbon footprint both during construction and in use by producing a
carbon reduction plan. This plan would include such things
as:
materials used, construction methods/design/energy facilities
within the houses/water and waste management. At present
despite producing a sustainability statement, the application does
not have sufficient evidence to show that these issues have been
given enough weight. For instance houses will be fitted with
gas boilers which will be phased out by 2025. Gas
boilers emit about 2.2 tonnes of CO2 per year which is equivalent
to taking 7 transatlantic flights annually between London and
New York, why install them now when there are alternatives
such as heat pumps? If heat pumps were
installed, and the houses were designed to passivhaus standard, this would reduce carbon
emissions and save money in
energy bills for the house owner.
In the view of our group all new developments should be obliged to
produce such a carbon reduction plan. (as other councils such as Teignbridge have
done) Failing that, will the council refuse planning
permission until there is more evidence of carbon reduction as
suggested above?
Giles Fawsett informed the Committee that…..last week MDDC approved my planning application.
I quote “The erection of a 2 storey side extension at … (my property) is considered to be acceptable in policy terms. On balance, the overall scale and design of the proposal is acceptable following minor amendments to the design and it will not result in an overdevelopment of the site. The extension is considered to work in context with the existing dwelling, using materials to match existing. Solar panels are proposed to the roof of the extension and these comply with local policy. It is considered that there will be no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of residents of nearby properties and the development will not harm the setting of nearby heritage assets including the Conservation Area. As such, the scheme is considered to comply with policies S1, S9, S12, DM1, DM2, DM11 and DM25 of the Mid Devon District Council Local Plan (2013-2033), the Crediton Neighbourhood Plan 2018 - 2033 and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.” End quote.
I am on mains gas but use no gas. I know that when my solar panels are fixed to my new south facing roof I will be energy self-sufficient.
Are any of you embarrassed by the Bellway development?
The Chairman informed those present that the questions would be
answered when the application was discussed.