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.

Public questions were received from:

Elizabeth Dalton

22/02220/MFUL Land at NGR 283084 102432 (Fanny's Lane) Sandford Devon.

I wish to register my strong objection to the revised planning permission for the above site, on the following basis:-

Application for Removal or Variation of a Condition following Grant of Planning Permission submitted on behalf of Belfield Developments states incorrectly that the works have not been started but the site works have been in progress for many months:  Why the discrepancy?

‘Following the late receipt of the External Levels Plan from the Civil Engineers, the following drawing amendments have been revised and substituted on the following drawings: 

1445-P04 (Rev A) 

1445-P201 (Rev A) Section A-A behind No. 3 Creedy View shows levels on site but does not include Plot 3 Creedy View ground level. Why was the difference in levels not shown?

1445-P202 (Rev A) Section B -B behind between Nos 4 and 3 Creedy View shows levels on site but not the adjacent dwellings. Why was the difference in levels not shown?

 In the absence of the sections through the existing surrounding properties together with the adjoining new site the Committee cannot fully appreciate the extent of loss of amenity Bellfield’s construction has on the Creedy View residents. What effect will this omission have on the Committee’s decision?

The proximity of (Now) number 7 Weaver’s Way to Plot No. 2 Creedy View ensures that the garden of No. 2 CV will be completely overshadowed and dark.  How can this be ameliorated?

1445-P203 (Rev A) Section C - C behind No. 1 Creedy View shows levels on site and not the adjacent dwellings – specifically does not show the level of No. 1 Creedy View’s garden that has had the ground cut away around two external edges of the garden, leaving No. 1’s garden with an unsupported sheer drop of several metres.   Why has the original proposed supporting structure been omitted?

Plots 1 and 2 Creedy View have been substantially affected by the Weaver’s Way excavations that undermine the stability of their ground so what stabilisation works would the committee recommend?

1445-P204 (Rev A) Shows the fence line that now goes right up to the public right of way. Will these gardens be fenced to delineate the land ownership?

Dwg. No:32002 Rev.1 dated 13.06.22 Rev: F shows retaining walls removed and earth bank added, thereby creating instability of the garden of No. 1 Creedy View and the area supporting the communal LPG tank for Creedy View residents.  Has the stability of the Garden and gas tank been assessed by a professional structural engineer?

32001-BPC-XX-XX-DR-C-0001 (Rev I) Engineer's drawing has a scale 1:200 and refers to sheets 1 - 3 and to the steep banking being to 'contractor's design' but only sheet 1 appears. Where are sheets 2-3 and have they been submitted to MDDC Planners? Does the contractor have sufficient professional expertise?

·       Dwg No: PO3 refers to the Existing Public Right of Way path to remain unsurfaced and unaffected by the development - however an intention to raise the level of the footpath has been promulgated so that the developer can spread the spoil from his excavations. Although the Footpaths Officer has vetoed this proposal will it be monitored to ensure footpath integrity?

·       Dwg No: PO3 also shows plot numbering from 1 – 13 as the site is entered.  The revised proposal shows house numbering from 13 – 1 instead.  Why was this necessary?

·       Dwg No: PO4 shows banking along the southern edge of the building site but also where the soil is obviously proposed to be spread over the proposed public open space. Will this soil be spread out to ensure that there is no likelihood of slippage onto the houses below in Meadowside road?

·       Are MDDC satisfied that Belfield have fully complied with Clause 15 of the Decision Notice, i.e.,
the design of the attenuation ponds.

·       Are there any cross-section drawings available through the Attenuation Pond from the Furlongs footpath and the houses in Meadowside that show the relationship between the pond and houses below? (Have MDDC planners assessed the risk of flooding to the houses should the existing soil give way and checked the design calculations for the pond?)?

I strongly object to proposal to ‘regularise’ the now built site with retrospective planning permission rather than enforcing the originally approved permission.

The Chairman informed those present that the questions would be dealt with when the application was reached on the agenda.