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 (Application 23/00126/FULL) -  Chairman read out.

 

Question 1

In respect of Paragraph 3.4 Page 87 and Paragraph 3.6 of your bundle.

 

The statements made in the officer report appear very substantially incorrect. That the new Zed Pods modules will be far bigger than the existing footprint. The modular building will be over 50% wider this including the balcony’s extending to the front of the property and the stair tower at the rear. 

 

That the modular home will extend forward by about 3 meters in respect of the existing building line.

 

Why are Planning Officers supporting a building design where the massing is substantially insensitive to the local area and therefore not compliant with the principles of Policy DM1?

 

Question 2

On examining the drawings provided by Zed Pods it is noticed that the 2 bedroom 4 person properties have an internal floor space area of only 66.9 m2. This despite to be compliant with the National Housing Standard they should have a gross internal floor area of 70m2.  That even when an allowance is made for the internal separation walls that the floor space does not meet the standard.

 

Specifically the Living Dining and Kitchen Area has a floor space of 30.5 m2.

Bedroom 1  = 11.5m2

Bedroom 2 = 11.5 m2                                                             

WC = 4.1 m2

Entrance Lobby (Room) =  8 m2

Storage = 1.3 m 

 

Total 66.9 m2 or around 3.1 m2 less than the National Space Standard or DM 1 requires.

 

Will MDDC Officers obtain and make available the drawings showing the exact internal wall to wall measurements of each of the dwellings. This to fully confirm full compliancewith National Floor Space Standards?

 

Question 3

It is noted that the design of the 1^st floor one-bedroom properties have bedroom windows that have direct access from a communal landing.  This resulting in both substantial privacy (visual and noise) and security issues for the residents. 

                                                                                                                                     

Does this Committee accept that this floor plan design warrants substantial redesign and for the welfare of its residents. That the current floor space design is not conducive to good or healthy living standards and therefore is unacceptable and by any reasonable measure?   

 

Question 4

Why is the applicant only providing 9 parking spaces and when the policy requires it to be 14 spaces?

 

Why should the applicant on behalf of MDDC once again be given a DM 5 car space provision dispensation? A dispensation that would permit others developers easily to do so as the benchmark has been set? 

 

Question 5

A recent Government Report and coupled with well publicised Chief Fire Officer repeat concerns has identified potential fire risk to Category 1 modular homes and which ZED PODS are. Fire risk with the potential of rapid and complete burn down. 

 

Has MDDC commissioned a fully independent and expert report into ZED POD modular home fire safety this including the preparation of any risk mitigation plan.  If not, why not?  

 

Peter Drew (Application 23/01351/MFUL)  

 

Question 1

I support the principle of grid scale battery storage as an appropriate response to the climate emergency but I remain unconvinced this is the right site for this development. Specifically my concern relates to the scale of the substation in the context of the dismissed appeal on this site.

 

Question 2

In my view the Applicant’s approach to the substation has been misleading. It was not shown on any of the material that formed part of the pre-application consultation. The Committee Report claims that the submitted drawing shows the structure would be a maximum of 13 m high, but that claim is incorrect. At the stated scale of the drawing, which is 1:1000, the structure measures 23 m high.

 

Question 3

It might be that there is an internal contradiction on the face of drawing No 10 Rev 2 between the annotation and the scale. In other words it might be that the plan is actually drawn to a scale of 1:500, but if that is true then it beggars belief that such an error can exist on the only drawing showing the height of the highest structure proposed and not be noticed at registration or during the long gestation of this planning application. You would therefore be unwise to grant planning permission today on the basis of such a fundamentally contradictory drawing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 4

Even if the highest structure is 13 m tall, rather than 23 m, I still have concerns about its visual impact. The LVIA falsely claims that my property is outside the zone of theoretical visibility but from my bedroom windows and balcony I have a clear view up the valley that takes in the pylons, Burlescombe Church all well beyond the application site. The claim that I would not see a new structure well over 40 feet high to the south east of a line to the church is nonsense and perhaps fails to account for my windows being up to 6 m above ground level. To be clear I am not objecting because I would see it from home but I am saying the LVIA is not fit for purpose because I can testify to the fact that it underestimates the visual impact of the proposal. My opinion that the LVIA is unsatisfactory is confirmed by the fact that the photomontages that have been submitted fail to show the highest structure which would, by way of example, be visible above and at certain times of year between the trees when seen from the path next to the canal, which is a conservation area and a popular and attractive leisure walk.

 

Question 5

The Committee Report claims that this proposal can be distinguished from the scheme dismissed at appeal on the basis that it would have had a “moderate to high impact”. That again is incorrect. The LVIA undertaken by Aecom said the appeal scheme would have a “moderate adverse effect on landscape character yet no significant effects on visual amenity [and] once the proposed mitigation planting has become established, the predicted landscape effects would be reduced to minor adverse or negligible level”. So, in other words, the level of harm identified by 2 landscape architects applying the standard GLVA guidelines is greater for the current proposal, particularly in terms of visual effects, than for that which was dismissed on appeal by the Secretary of State in 2018. Against the background that the Applicant failed to even mention the dismissed appeal at any stage of its voluminous submission, in what appears to be a flagrant attempt to mislead, and so has never offered any reasons to depart from its position, the Planning Officer has completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented the position in the Committee Report. If you were to decide to grant planning permission today on the basis of this incorrect advice then your decision would be challengeable.

 

Question 6

I have found no clear analysis as to how the application site was identified. The only rationale appears to be that the site is close to the motorway and so it would be easy from a logistical point of view to get the containers onto the land but whilst that might be convenient for the Applicant that does not mean it is a good location in landscape terms.

 

There appears to be no analysis of alternative sites. In particular I note that East Devon District Council only last month granted planning permission for a similar scale battery energy storage scheme [BESS]. In its press release following that decision the applicant, a company called Statera Energy, said “Increasing BESS capacity close to National Grid’s strategic substations is critically important to the decarbonisation of the UK’s electricity system”. I agree and in my view that is the key. As I understand it there are existing substations at Burlescombe, to the west of Willand, which is called Tiverton Junction Substation, and to the south of Tiverton just a few hundred metres from the Council Offices. Why haven’t these sites been considered because, to be clear, I positively support the delivery of BESS and, subject to landscaping, do not perceive them to be harmful to the landscape, but it is the scale of the proposed substation that is the problem.

 

Question 7

I would like to finish by quoting from the dismissed appeal. The Secretary of State found that this site was “the ‘gateway’ into Devon...being directly adjacent to and visible from the A361…as well as being visible in longer views from the M5 and from the railway line”. In that context it was concluded that “the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area in which it is located and that this could not be avoided or minimised to acceptable levels within a reasonable period”. Given the proposed development would be two and a half times the height of what was previously found to be unacceptable on this site and that a structure 13 m high could not be ameliorated by landscaping, this scheme is materially worse - as borne out by the Applicant’s own LVIA working to standard guidelines - and should be refused for this reason.

 

Darren Manley (Application 23/00511/FULL) - Chairman read out.

 

Question 1

Are you aware that If this development goes ahead you would potentially lose 20-25 parking spaces (this includes the current car park and garages with some having additional parking at the front of their garages)   You are going to create 16 new parking spaces. Which would mean a loss of around 9 parking spaces.  Currently most evenings every parking space is occupied. This would create huge problems, especially as some people work shifts and in the morning after a 12 hour shift the last thing people want to be doing is looking for a parking space after work.

 

Question 2

If you build 5 new dwellings, assuming each would have at least one vehicle, where would the additional parking be? Probably along the roads which are already crowded.

 

Question 3

And where will the elderly residents that currently park in the carpark near the garages park their vehicles? Especially with some having limited mobility. 

 

Question 4

Emergency vehicles, recycle/refuse collections deliveries etc would struggle to get past these vehicles.   Are you aware that this would be a huge problem in an emergency?

 

Question 5

Also where is the current local infrastructure investment of doctors, schools, public transport etc?  

 

Philip Marshall (Application 23/00511/FULL)

 

Question 1

I would like to ask if a resident impact statement has been completed. Taking in to account the following:

 

(a)  The land drains in the carpark aren’t fit for purposes, are totally silted up and the carpark floods with the slightest bit of rain. This has been exasperated by people concreting their gardens to accommodate what they had previously stored in their garages. Which we were lied to about. You said in the Zoom meeting only 2 were occupied. I personally know of 3 people who rented a garage and are in the process of moving out. I have been informed it is possible as many as 10. You denied this multiple time during the meeting.

(b)  The new car parking spaces all require cars to reverse out over the pavement and will need turn on them to get out, making access from our cul-de-sac more dangerous as the road is too narrow to turn on and the cars will need to use the pavement for passing and turning.

(c)  Access in and out of Eastlands is really restricted as cars park on one side of the road leaving only enough room for one vehicle to pass. The dropped pavement in front of the garages was the only place to pull in and allow vehicles to pass with the new building plans and carpark arrangement this will be impossible creating bottle necks. Making it nearly impossible to get in and out of the close when a delivery or recycling lorry is present. Cars will have to pull on to the pavement making them dangerous to use for the residents especially children. The roads into Eastlands really need widening if you’re going to add more families into the cul-de-sac and reduce the overall number of car parking spaces.

(d)  As the roads are so narrow and in an awful condition the presence of workers and building delivery lorries is going to add to the traffic congestion and wear and tear to the road during the building construction period. Will working people be compensated for any loss of earnings caused by these delays and will the roads be brought up to a suitable standard before works commence, including widening to improve access.

(e)  If you insist on proceeding with these plans without proper consultation of the residents which hasn’t happened up to now, we will have no other option than to block access to the site and considering the access problems we already have in Eastlands and how you are going to make them even worse it won’t be too hard to do with some nonviolent direct action. I can promise you most of the residents support this and it will happen. We will not have these plans forced upon us with no changes to accommodate the residents and to make it safe for residents especially children to travel to and from the cul-de-sac.

Tilly Cooling (Application 23/00511/FULL) - Chairman read out.

 

Question 1

Parking is currently an issue for residents in Eastlands currently as there aren’t enough spaces. The residents have been asking for years for the green triangle to be made into extra parking but have been ignored. What is going to be done in order to fix this problem as it will just worsen with the increase in houses and no increase to parking facilities?

 

Question 2

The main concern for residents is the extra pressure on sewage, water and electric. We have issues with drainage and bad roads there are so many potholes that need sorting. The excess weight of plant vehicles are likely to make the road surfaces even worse during the process of building the development. Are these issues going to be addressed?

 

Question 3

The Council should be more concerned in the upkeep of the current properties they have already rather than adding to it. There are a number of outstanding repair jobs which myself and other residents have been waiting months and years for which just keep getting pushed back. We have been left in the darkness to when these are going to be done. Will we have to wait even longer for these repairs to take place?

 

Question 4

Is the new development going to be for local residents or current residents who need to downsize? Or do they intend to bring in people from outside of the Culmbridge area.

 

Question 5

Is the school, preschool and the doctors going to receive more funding and resources to keep up with the increase in children if the Council intend to put in families. The doctors and the schools are currently extending their limits and can’t take on anymore without changes being made.

 

Sophia Sendra (Application 23/00511/FULL)

 

Question 1

Since the first hand-delivered letter in December '22, all notifications, consultations and contact has been extremely limited and restricted to internet users only. This has excluded all the residents who are most affected by the proposal, the residents of the bungalows and houses immediately surrounding the site. The majority of those residents are not internet users and are unaware of when to expect the build to start, fearing how and when life will change for them. 

Question 2

The letter notifying of this meeting was sent as an attachment to an email, only 2 of us have received it. We took it upon ourselves to take photocopies and hand deliver it to all the residents of Eastlands.
The garage tenants have received 2 separate 'Notice to Quit' letters, both with different deadline dates and an application form to apply for a garage in a neighbouring village which included the plots in Eastlands. They also received an invoice for next year's rent after receiving the first Notice To Quit.

 

Question 3

You are planning to remove 21 parking spaces and create 16 new ones. 5 houses will introduce approximately 10 more cars. This leaves a clear shortfall. There is much concern from residents and Hemyock Parish Council about the proposed configuration of the new parking area. There are obvious safety issues and it would be prudent to discuss this with the residents and to rethink the configuration based on our knowledge of daily life in Eastlands with safety as a priority.

 

Question 4

Administration and communication between Council departments and with the residents of Eastlands has been shockingly inept.
All concerns, comments and recommendations submitted last December by the residents and Hemyock Parish Council were disregarded. The limited contact relating to this proposal feels like nothing more than a box-ticking exercise.

 

Question 5

Can you explain why every single concern and suggestion has been ignored and will you consider reviewing your approach to this proposal by listening to and interacting with the residents instead of building a wall of resistance?

 

Mark Stewart (Application 23/1870/MOUT)

 

Question 1

Is the proposed development in conflict with policies DM18 (Rural Development) and DM22 (Tourism and Leisure Development) and the findings of the Mid Devon Tourism Study?

 

Question 2

Does the business plan for the proposed development include a robust and detailed financial summary with breakeven points and profit goals within 5 years as per the requirements set out by Mid Devon District Council?

 

Question 3

Would the planning committee care to answer on the following, the detailed plans of type 1 & 2 Safari tents clearly show baths, showers, toilets and sinks, none of the tents or cabins are offering gutters, downpipes, rainwater collection or soakaways in any respect.

 

Question 4

The climate emergency planning checklist submitted in the planning application, argues that the applicant does not require any of the following, rainwater collection, greywater recycling, water efficacy design, soakaways etc

 

Question 5

The installation details of PTSP is not sufficiently detailed, but the understanding is that there will be one per tent/cabin, equally the processors do not have to have soil permeability and percolation tests and will be discharging into the ground.

 

Question 6

As no other flood mitigating factors have been proposed by the applicant to reduce the transit time of waste water and rainwater entering the watercourses and considering the site is bounded by flood zones 2 and 3, the proposed development along with global warming and increased rainfall puts more strain on the watercourses and increases the flood risk, the proposal is therefore unsuitable and in conflict with policy S9 (c) (Environment).

 

Dr Julie Meeson (Application 23/1870/MOUT)

 

Question 1

I would like to ask the committee how they consider the application complies with pollution policy DM4 when the following details are considered?

 

Although the officer’s report sets condition #7 preventing ‘amplified, live, or recorded music except within the lodge building’, other significant noise will be generated by the 88 people plus day visitors (according to the applicant’s ‘Marketing Strategy’), as they use the outdoor swimming pool, eating and drinking areas and other outdoor activities; additional noise will also arise from staff and site maintenance services.

 

The topography of the valley together with the overall quiet nature of this countryside means noise travels a long way. I can hear 2 workers chatting as they work at the pheasant rearing area several fields away, so I am sure the noise from 88+ guests enjoying themselves eating and drinking until late at night and revelling in the outdoor pool will be objectionable to residents and negatively affect wildlife. Residents already suffer noise late into the night from the existing Loyton’s facility when they hold commercial events such as parties and weddings, but the sporadic nature of these means’ complaints are not raised.

 

Question 2

Light pollution is also a significant concern in this application – with the officer’s report condition #8 requiring ‘an additional lighting design strategy before installing any lighting’. As there is already a ‘lighting strategy plan’ in the application I ask the Committee whether this plan will be used to satisfy condition 8?

 

The reason I ask is because the lighting proposed in this plan is excessive: for Phase 1 alone approximately 1000m of paths and tracks will be lit, tent decks will have lights facing the sky and the car park area will be lit. Using the specifications in the current plan this could result in up to 115 lights at 600 lumens on paths / tracks and 20 lights in the car park at 810 lumens.

 

The impact of this level of lighting (even if motion triggered), on wildlife and residents’ conflicts with policy DM4 by virtue having a negative impact on the natural environment and general amenity.

 

Question 3

Finally, each of the 25 dwellings will have a log burner fitted – thus contributing to increased particulate matter and smoke pollution. Depending on wind direction and other atmospheric conditions the pollution from wood burners could settle in the valley and impact clean air.

 

Victoria Killearn (Application 23/1870/MOUT)

 

Question 1

Would the committee take a moment to comment on why this development needs to be scattered over 20 hectares quality agricultural land when it could be accommodated closer to the proposed amenities thereby lessening the impact on the environment and lessen the loss of farmland. (MDLP S9). This policy recommends and I quote “Preserving the quality and productivity of the best and most versatile agricultural land whenever possible”.  Would they not consider this application contravenes this clear advice of Mid Devon?

Question 2

Has the committee taken in that one sixth of Loyton Farm will be lost to this holiday complex.  The farm covers approximately 300 acres. A good proportion is wooded.  Most of the valley will no longer be farmed and that such changes of use are all threats to the quality of Middevon.  Would they agree that this site should not be considered suitable for allocation to commercial development?

Question 3

I implore the committee to take seriously the adverse impact on the quality of life of close neighbours. There will be inevitable noise, night light, and odours from 88 guests trying to keep warm in a wet Devon valley.  And when they are sitting outside in the evening every sound they make will amplify outwards and upwards as if in an amphitheatre.

Dogs can so easily be carriers of Neospera Caninum causing early abortion in cattle.  I need hardly remind you all of just how many sheep and lambs are killed by walkers' dogs each year.  Also red and roe deer suffer heartbreaking injuries from being brought down by dogs.

Question 4

Would the planning committee consider it sensible, if this application is passed, that a planning condition is added to ban dogs from the safari accommodation?

Question 5

And finally is the committee aware that it is incorrect - as stated in the application - that local residents and neighbours were involved in the early conception of the application?

Some Councillors were contacted but this did not include ordinary residents.

It is recommended as stated in the Community Involvment statement  SC1/7, 10 and 11 that this should happen and it did not. Only a few were invited to look around the site in February 2024, 2 months after it was submitted to you.   The closest and most worried neighbours were not invited. I stress NOT INVITED. I have never known this parish so disturbed and unhappy.

 

Lars Hesslegren (Application 23/1870/MOUT)

 

Question 1

Since your policy states (DM1) “Designs … must be of high quality … well integrated with surrounding buildings, streets and landscapes”  So why should the proposal which claims to be tents but which are in fact small dwellings – complete with bathrooms and kitchens be considered appropriate? Their appearance is completely out of context with local buildings – instead of an approach involving local materials.

 

Question 2

Since your policy (DM18) says “Rural employment development … permission will be granted for new-build employment development or expansion of existing businesses, provided that the development is of an appropriate use and scale for its location.” So why build 10 tents which are in fact a set of luxury dwellings set in a park? Each tent is located well away from its neighbours so this is not a village arrangement which would be more appropriate especially if these so-called tents became permanent dwellings as they easily could. The tent roofs combined with wood burners seem inappropriate in an age of new heating technologies. The walls and windows are modern but the roof and heating technologies are inappropriate and against government policy.

 

Question 3

Since your policy (S14) says “Countryside Development outside the settlements will preserve … and enhance the character, appearance and biodiversity of the countryside while promoting sustainable diversification of the rural economy.”  Why build a development that is completely unrelated to the scale of the existing Morebath village? This is a luxury Butlins development with no interaction with the local society and the design layout reflects that segregated approach. It is clear no interaction with the locals is anticipated or desired.

 

The layout is very dispersed – each so-called tent is on average 70 m apart, although there is a group of 4 closer together. The total length of gravelled track – intended for bicycles and ATVs but realistically will be used by cars – is 951m, nearly 1 km. It is laid out so that the walk to the central marquee is very circuitous.

 

Question 4

Since your policy (DM22) says “a Tourism and leisure development … will be supported within or adjacent to defined settlements. … it must justify a countryside location and minimise environmental impacts, avoiding an unacceptable traffic impact on the local road network.”  How would this development unrelated to the existing village of Morebath be a justified countryside location? It is not part in any way of the small village and the traffic impact – including agriculture - is likely to be severe.

 

In addition it would imply a great deal of car excursions to Exmoor, adding the strain on the local lanes.  The impact on the neighbourhood would be very damaging – this is a luxury development where the locals would not be involved.

 

Matt Brammer (Application 23/1870/MOUT)

Question 1

The committee will no doubt be aware that Planning policy S1(K) details the need for developments conserving and enhancing the natural environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Given this wording, how could this planning application possibly be accepted? In particular, could the committee comment on how the addition of 25 structures, plus hard access trackways damaging protected habitats, plus lighting, plus vehicles, plus wood burners, plus supporting maintenance activities by staff, contractors and suppliers, could be described as conserving and enhancing an area which is currently open farmland and woodland?

Question 2

I would also like to ask the committee if they feel this application can be granted, given the concept of minimising impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity as described in planning policy S1(L)? Whilst Devon County Council’s own principle ecologist has raised multiple concerns, I ask this with particular concern regarding the impact of human disturbance on wildlife and also the effect of light pollution on wildlife. The effect of cutting trees down can be partly mitigated by planting more trees, and moving hedges can be mitigated by re-planting elsewhere, but I do not see how it is possible to mitigate against wildlife departing an area of quiet countryside if something near 100 campers were to move in on a year-round basis. Light pollution is known to have negative effects on amphibians, birds, mammals, insects and plants, and multiple scientific papers have been published on the subject. The blurring of the boundary between day and night disrupts the natural patterns of sleeping, hunting, eating and mating for many species, potentially changing the balance of species within an area.

 

Bats in particular associate light with danger and avoid entering or crossing lit areas making lighting a barrier on wildlife corridors and routes used by bats travelling to feed. On our own property we have a significant population of glow worms, a species which is currently in decline. Female glow worms use light emitted from their abdomen to attract a mate, as such they are a species particularly sensitive to light pollution as the males can be attracted to alternative light sources. The lighting plan included with the application shows trackways to be lit with between 100 and 220 lights in total, each equivalent to a 40watt incandescent bulb. In addition to this the proposed cabins have decking lights and interior lighting.

 

Question 3

Given the potential for harm, does the committee consider the addition of hundreds of light sources to an area of almost entirely dark countryside, to be in line with the principle of minimising impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity outlined by policy S(1)L?

 

Sherrie Tuhy (Application 23/1870/MOUT)

 

Question 1

I would like to ask the committee why the applicant’s proposal is supported by a transport statement and travel plan only. NOT a travel assessment as may be required under highways policy DM3? This document was produced for the applicant and is paid for by the same.

 

Also it is clearly stated that this transport statement is produced in SUPPORT of the application.  Perhaps the committee could answer why the transport statement was NOT an independent document and as a result it could be argued to present a POSITIVE TWIST to make any prospective reader of the statement agree the road network is easily able to take the additional load.  The local objectors did offer a fully independent traffic assessment but were told that this would be inadmissible

 

I am here to offer some questions for the planning committee to answer which show up in the travel plan submitted by the applicant

 

First the document submitted uses data based on incorrect assumptions.

The shoot traffic will decline as the holiday traffic increases due to the decline of the shoot business thus there will be little or no increase in total road usage. Documents submitted recently say the shoot will continue indefinitely.

The majority of traffic will arrive and leave via Hukeley Bridge.

Some traffic will turn right when leaving and pass through CLAYPITS..... A TIGHT AWKWARD ROAD Blatant omissions in the transport statement and the failure to consider or mention

 

The Morebath cricket club,

the hunt and hunt followers.,

the roads being unlit...

the roads being narrow ...

the roads being single vehicle width,

claypits is not mentioned at all.

no mention of the pothole problem

the roads have deep drainage ditches on either side.

the use of the roads by local farm traffic and animals

 

All very conveniently left out of the transport statement

 

The bus service is one bus out and one bus back a day.....

 

Car sharing does not really happen

 

This proposal will bring a massive increase in traffic generation on roads that are windy with limited visibility.  Hukeley bridge B3227 has already been severely damaged on more than one occasion and required repair on more than one occasion because of vehicles hitting it due to the tight turn to the right.  The proposal is contrary to the local plan policy DM3 (Transport) (which observes the requirement for a transport assessment) and conflicts with DM18a rural employment development by creating an unacceptable impact on the local road network.  And DM22 (Tourism and Leisure) which seeks to avoid unacceptable traffic impacts on the local roads network.