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 Staple Cross Farm and Crofts Estate Applications.
John Neave referring to No. 3 on the Plans List asked the following:-
Question 1) -While it was widely recognised that there was a need for more affordable Social housing within the Mid Devon District, has any consideration been given to an alternative site for this proposed development, for example the recently approved site within Sandford Parish known locally as Peddlars Pool/Libbets Grange for which approval has been granted for some 257 dwellings and other amenities. This development would likely be far more suitable for the proposed dwellings in Sandford and a fairly straight forward Amendment or Variation to the Peddlars pool development would resolve the current proposal.
Question 2) -Given the proposed development at Crofts Estate by the applicant, were any tenders submitted by a competitive provider or potential shared ownership provider. If not, why not?
Question 3) -If this proposed development were to be given approval, it was likely that there would be a substantial increase in revenue back to MDDC from that received currently from garage rentals, (EG rental income, council tax etc). Has any consideration been given to allocating some of this revenue back into Sandford Community in order to benefit the whole community?
Question 4) - A Field survey was undertaken by Merry Andersen, Arbtech Consulting, on 13/12/2022 to include Bat roosting, foraging habitat and flight line. This survey also considered other species such as hedgehogs etc. This survey, by their own admission, was incomplete as they could not gain access to any of the garages, and cannot be complete to any right-thinking individual, given that the primary species, (bats and hedgehogs), would have been in hibernation at this time. Would this Committee consider requesting that a full and proper survey was undertaken not only at the appropriate time of year, (usually April to October) but also the appropriate time of day (usually dusk/early evening)?
It may be worth noting that under The Conservation Regulations, including Habitat Regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, as well as the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, there may be strong legal argument for the protection of bat foraging, commuting habitat and flight lines, which a full and proper survey should highlight. Public authorities, while conducting their functions, should be mindful of regarding the conservation of biodiversity.
Taking the above into account should be a merit of good practice rather than solely being reliant on the developers or applicant.
Question 5) - Finally I would just like to respectfully request that this Committee throw out this application in its entirety given the level of feeling within the Sandford community and the number of objections submitted.
Had the Applicant consulted with the local community in the first instance instead of showing a reckless disregard towards it, then we may not have been in the position that we find ourselves today. Thank you.
Paula Kovacs referring to No. 3 on the Plans List stated that she appreciated this opportunity to share my thoughts on this proposed development, not only because I have been a resident of Crofts Estate for nearly twenty three years and would, obviously, be directly affected by any planned changes, but also because I feel strongly that we need to maintain a democratic process. I agree with Cllr Elizabeth Lloyd who commented in her article entitled ‘Placemaking matters” in the March 9 issue of The Crediton Courier – and I quote: “I’m only frustrated that I and others, often feel powerless in the face of developers that do things TO a place rather than work WITH a place”
As I stated in the letter of objection I sent to Council’s Development management, whilst I acknowledge that more affordable housing was very much needed, I feel very strongly that placing a new development in the middle of this small housing estate, was totally inappropriate. As many of my fellow residents have also stated in the comments they have submitted, the lack of parking at Crofts has reached a critical point. The meeting with MDDC officers organised some years ago, to discuss the parking situation, didn’t produce any results.
And the situation has deteriorated further since then, so we desperately need more parking, not only for the residents of Crofts Estate but also for St Swithins Garden and the village of Sandford generally.
If, as one resident has suggested in his submission, the current garages were demolished and replaced with parking to include electric charging points as well as some disabled parking spaces that, in my opinion, would be the very best use of this land. In an email Development Manager Angharad Williams sent to me she stated, and I quote “The Planning Officer’s role was to query whether this proposal represents, in planning terms, a good use of the land”. I would like to suggest that the aforementioned parking proposal, rather than the zedpod development, would indeed, be best use of the land at Crofts. If the Council does decide to approve the zedpod application, may I suggest that, at the very least, 1) the Council considers painting some white lines on the current Crofts car park, so that what little parking there was, apportioned appropriately and that 2) some extra parking space in Crofts is created by transforming a couple of grassed areas into concrete hard standing. Thank you.
Robert Gray referring to item 1 and 2 on the Plans List asked the following:-
Question 1) - We would like to know has a site visit been done by the Planning Committee as requested by the Borden Gate Parish Council from the meeting in January as no feedback has been received. What was the feedback from the visit? If no visit then why was this delicate case with multiple issues not been visually looked at?
Question 2) - The RAC paper contains no assessment of the business plan, noting that it was a confidential document. That need does not however extend to silence exhibited by RAC on the content of the plan. There was no expression of opinion on:
• Whether the business would be profitable and if so at what point.
• Whether the business would attain viability or indeed the measure of viability.
• Any opinion of the resale values of the livestock.
• Any opinion on how the livestock would be sourced and sold.
• Any opinion on the need for marketing (this was particularly relevant for the geese).
• The nature of the fixed and variable costs identified in the business plan.
• How the applicant intends to reduce his current of site work to transition to the full time labour requirement on site.
We would like the answers to the above:-
Question 3) - Was the Committee aware that there are three dwelling being built opposite the entrance to Staple Cross Farm as this wasn’t mentioned in the applications and has been shown as a poultry shed on the map in the agent’s submission?
Question 4) -On the planning applications submitted for Staple Cross Farm, the facts do not seem to be correct. I am the owner of the site opposite Staple Cross Farm. As of the 9th June 2020 planning was granted ref no 20/00570/full, stating the erection of 3 residential dwellings, following demolition of 2 agricultural buildings which I own.
On the applicants planning application for Staple Cross Farm it doesn’t state the fact there has been planning permission granted for residential occupancy opposite. On the 11/05/2022 work commenced on my development for the three dwellings.
From the date of commencement there has been a temporary bungalow that has been lived in by the applicant. It was a scar on the landscape. So my question is – were the Planning Committee aware of this and if so how has this been allowed because as a developer it would not be acceptable that a residence can just happen regardless of the rules and it’s been nearly a year?
Question 5) - Following on from my previous question, I am the owner of the site opposite Staple Cross Farm, building three properties all within my planning consent. When I bought the site I was aware of the storage barn. Since then we have started work on my site and an illegal farm popped up with immense geese noise and has turned in to an eyesore in the beautiful countryside. If this farm and geese are allowed to continue it would depreciate my site, business and make it difficult to sell these properties with the mess, eyesore and noise opposite. My question is – Why was this allowed to happen with no planning consent, and the applicant continues regardless with no thought to myself acting within my planning and rules and disregard to planning regulations?
Question 6) - My question to you all is ‘what were the applicants bringing to the community of Staple Cross’. Myself and other resident here today are bringing people to the area and supporting the local community and surrounding areas.
Louise Webb referring to Item 3 on the Plans List asked has the long overdue assessment of existing properties' parking allocation been conducted yet and resolution agreed?
Mellissa Tobin referring to Item 3 on the Plans List asked:-
Question 1) - It has only just come to light that CCTV is to be installed with these pods. Can someone please advise as to why that was exactly?
Question 2) - I feel this meeting was just paying 'lip service' now to the extremely ill-informed residents and that the plan would go ahead anyway.
Question 3) -How was the asbestos going to be removed when there was a watercourse 5 metres, not 10, away from the garages?
Question 4) -A legally binding agreement states that the Council must provide provision of suitable relocation to the current occupiers of the garages. Can MDDC tell us exactly where that would be?
Question 5) - As our Public Servants, the planning department must ensure that ALL residents are kept informed by LETTER. Many residents here are elderly or infirm and do not have access to a computer or email. Some still have no idea about what was proposed where many have had their homes for decades.
Question 6) - As Government was meant to be providing service to the public, and the public here strenuously object to this development, what assurances do we have that our voices would actually be heard?
The Chairman informed those present that the questions would be answered when the application was discussed.