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.

 

Barbara Downs – Application No. 24/00045/MOUT

 

Are the committee aware that some of the gardens in Chilcott Close flood when we have heavy rain fall. How much worse will this become if 100 properties are built with the rain absorption rate being less.

 

Vicky Pugh - Application No. 24/00045/MOUT

 

Firstly, I’d like to applaud Mid Devon on commissioning an independent Landscape Review of the site. That report details how the developer has significantly underestimated the negative effects on the landscape character in a number of key areas, in several cases assessing impacts as minor when in fact they are major ones.

My question today relates to the proposed closure of Tidcombe Bridge to most vehicles.
e
There are specific instructions for councils considering such traffic restrictions as they have a huge effect on local people’s lives. I’m sure you know Tidcombe Lane is the main artery connecting the Tidcombe community and Tidcombe Bridge is at the heart of it. To prevent residents from driving along the lane is to effectively sever the community.

Such was the shock and strong feelings when local people learned of the proposal to restrict access, I contacted Brian Hensley, Development Manager at DCC Highways as to why we had not been consulted. In his email dated May 3rd 2024, he confirmed that, and I’m quoting,
“It would be my expectation that an appropriate level of consultation would be required using developer funding”. Helen Govier has a copy of this email.

It has long been good practice for councils considering traffic restrictions to carry out leaflet drops, run online surveys and hold in-person meetings and the draft statutory document states that failure to be confident of local support could affect future transport funding. This is why Brian Hensley has confirmed this should have been done prior to an application coming before Mid Devon.

A full independent public consultation is clearly required and I ask the Planning Committee to include the absence of one as a reason for refusal.

As a school inspector for 15 years, I’m aware that there is a statutory obligation for councils to go to all practicable lengths to minimise potential dangers to children in the immediate vicinity of their schools. Again, this is a County Council responsibility and no such assessment has been carried out into the likely impact of the closure of Tidcombe Bridge on the safety of the school children.

The closure of Tidcombe Bridge would in my view increase the risk to Tidcombe Primary School children. A significant proportion arrive and leave by car, many approaching from Blundells Road. There are no safe turning spaces (the reversing of cars outside schools must always be avoided because it is the highest risk of all to small children) and there would inevitably be a resultant increase in traffic through the narrow residential roads leading into the Wilcombe Estate.

If it is the decision of this committee to accept the Planning Officers’ recommendation to refuse the application, we ask if you will consider including as an additional reason for refusal, the following, referring specially to the proposed traffic restriction on Tidcombe Bridge.

1) An appropriate public consultation has not taken place

2) DCC has not yet carried out an impact assessment on child safety at Tidcombe Primary School as part of their statutory duty.

 

David Randell (Ray Rice speaking on his behalf) - Application No. 24/00045/MOUT

 

I have been asked by Mr Randell to read the following as he has been delayed returning from Coventry.

 

He says, ‘’Are the Committee aware that I have carefully reviewed the applicant’s various documents and the Consultees responses and made 16 specific statements relating to the various documents, some forensically.  In my professional life I always judged a report on its Honesty, Accuracy and Relevance.  In all of those I have considered, all lack at least one of those judgements. As a registered and qualified Architect having run an Architect’s practice here in Tiverton with projects throughout the West Country for over 40 years, these are the principals under which I practiced.

 

However, today I only wish to emphasise 2 that in my opinion show the errors that have been published, in these cases, by the Consultees to the council.   If you refer to the Education authorities statement (Para 2.1) and the financial contribution requested, there appears be a substantial mathematical error that the Officer dealing with this application has had to repeat.  The Authority states that the development will generate an additional13.2 pupils for the Highschool at a cost of £23,540 per pupil.  This equates to £310,728 not the £77,682 in their report.  If this application was to be passed, then this error urgently needs correcting, or the High School will lack those essential funds.

 

The other comment relates to the proposal to close Tidcombe Bridge where all three judgements fail.  In the Officer’s report, para. 9.1, the officer has to repeat the comment made in the Devon County Highways report that by 2032, 2000 additional vehicles will be using Tidcombe Lane to access the A361 dual carriageway.  Now it is my and many others understanding that the A361 is North of Blundell’s Road with a new access at Post Hill off Blundell’s Road due to become a full access in time. It is certainly not South of Tidcombe Lane where it meets Canal Hill. So why would the vehicles from the EUE Post Hill development want to make a 3 mile detour down country lanes to access the A361 when it is on their doorstep? The obvious and shortest route is to continue down Blundells Road.

 

Because the Highway’s comment was so bizarre, I sought, through the Freedom of Information Act, for copies of minutes of meetings with the applicants.  The reply was that there were none. I then requested, copies of any calls, discussions etc.  To date none have been forthcoming, so the question is, did any meetings take place at all, because if they didn’t, Highways are certainly not doing their job, and this leads to the serious question of who is trying to fool who and for what purpose because it certainly doesn’t support the closure of Tidcombe Bridge?

 

I leave it to you, members of the planning committee, to make your own minds up as to the reliability of the reports that some consultees are providing you and your officers as they are supposed to help you and the Officers of the Council in making the correct decisions for our community because they certainly do not support this application’’.

 

Sally Elworthy - Application No. 24/00045/MOUT

We are expected to be environmentally friendly in these modern times.

Has anyone really inspected Tidcombe Hall recently? It is in a frightful mess.

Am I being cynical in suspecting that it would be very convenient for the developers if it fell down?

While waiting for the building of 100 houses, they could have proceeded with the conversion of the Hall into flats and the outbuildings would have made lovely cottages.

The magnificent trees are being assaulted by uncontrolled ivy. The massive cedar and the holm oaks are in a particularly pitiful state and are likely to die very soon if not given some attention. To lose the trees might also suit LVA’s purposes.

Developers is the wrong word for them – they are killers of the natural environment. Shame on them.

The trees are living things and important to us all. Is it not possible for the Council to persuade LVA to provide proper care for them as well as preventing the possible loss of a listed building?

Dermot Elworthy - Application No. 24/00045/MOUT

 

Tidcombe Lane originally was established to provide access to the 18th century house. Being narrow, having several pinch points and blind corners, the Lane is not an ideal passage for motor vehicles.  

However, any considerations of vehicular activity based solely on the supposed numbers of vehicles are bound to generate misleading results. The long-winded and jargon-esque opinion given by the Devon Highways Authority, much of which is not germane to this subject, is riddled with errors in projections as well as an obvious lack of awareness of the consequences of proposals made in ignorance of local conditions. 

As an example of this last point, the suggestion of diverting what currently is Tidcombe Lane through-traffic to Marina Way, past the primary school, the narrow, congested and largely blind passage through the dense Wilcombe housing estate, eventually to Ford Road and the Great Western Way, is nonsensical and would prove wholly impracticable. Yet the report claims that “These increases will amount to one vehicle per minute during the peak times, therefore not creating a trip generation intensification impact that is severe upon the local highway network”.

Well, the reality is that the anticipated increase in traffic volume would indeed create a major “trip generation intensification impact” and dangerously exacerbate the already poor conditions in this area. I imagine this anomaly arises from the Mid Devon Council not having been included in DCC discussions, nor has local opinion been sought. The involvement of either local body would have avoided such an obvious blunder.

 The author of the DCC paper claims that in addition to the calculated existing vehicular traffic, only seven further movements per day will be generated by the proposed development. Patently, this is further nonsense. The national average pertaining to the ownership of cars per household is 1,2:1 but in rural and semi-rural areas, this ratio is substantially higher. Coupled with the occupation of the Hall itself, the conversion of outbuildings and with the building of the 100 houses proposed by the developer, traffic in Tidcombe Lane could, in theory, amount to more than an additional 300 vehicle movements daily – not the paltry 7 movements suggested by the Devon County Council. If one assumes the probability of some occupants comprising Exeter overspill, this additional traffic will be concentrated around the twice-daily rush hours, thus adding vehicles to the existing Canal Hill-Blundell’s Road morning/evening rat-run.

 The reference made to “2000 houses from the EUE accessing Tidcombe Lane onroute [sic] to the A361”, clearly is a mistake (one of many in a sloppily prepared and poorly constructed report). In any event, the Eastern Urban Development is irrelevant to this issue since the Post Hill traffic in seeking A361 access will have no reason to go anywhere near Tidcombe Lane. Similarly, the projection of more than 2,000 daily trips over the canal bridge - the supposed volume evidently being increased by EUE traffic – is equally fanciful.

The Highways Authority has stated that its acceptance of the application is contingent upon the MDDC enacting a bridge closure order. No substantive case for such closure has been made, nor need it be. In any event, to close the bridge and so egregiously effect the removal of an ancient right of passage for no reason other than to accommodate the convenience of a financially speculative and unpopular venture cannot possibly be allowed. It follows, therefore, that the Tidcombe Hall LVA/Grassroots Planning application in this and all other respects should be refused; I respectfully request that the Committee makes this refusal.

Louise Butcher – Application No.  24/00285/FULL

The protection of our natural environment is a clear priority in Devon’s future development plans: such as policies S9, DM26,27, 28 and of course the Devon Climate Emergency Plan 2019 which I am aware that many councillors here have attended meetings on recently.

 

Dobson ‘95 states structural roots providing stability for trees are 2-3m radius of the trunk, cutting a tree’s root system will reduce the tree’s water absorbing capacity & severance of major roots weaken the tree’s resistance to pathogens.

 

BSA5837 states to protect tree roots the RPA (Root Protection Area) should be plotted for Cat A, B and C trees. This distance is a radius 12 times the stem diameter for single stem trees &10 times diameter for trees with more than one stem.

 

Those that visited the site in July saw the Devon bank on the northern boundary dropping away at heights of up to 1.5m and proximity of buildings to trees. The majority of the roots stabilising & giving life point south where the buildings’ concrete footings will be. The suggested distance of buildings from the trees is currently 0.5m-1m risking their death & their habitats, which in this case is predominantly bats.

 

We also have grave concerns over multiple material inaccuracies on Applicant’s Arboricultural Report:

 

1. Image shows no trees between trees T013 and T014 which is incorrect. G015 tree cluster is in between T013 and T014.

2. Applicant’s Arboriculture report does not state the radius of the tree trunks of G015 G016 G010 rendering their RPA calculations unfounded.

3. G015 tree cluster states bat habitat low – however our report cites 250 fly bys.

4. BNG for this 2 acre TPO (Tree Preservation Order) woodland is currently ornamental planting and planting of 6-8cm saplings where trees have been damaged during construction.

5. Page 6 on applicant’s report, states no TPO’s nor conservation area which is incorrect.

6. Page 14 states Northern boundary is an outgrown hedge with multi-stemmed “trees” of low quality. However contradicting themselves later where a tree cluster G015 on Northern Boundary condition is “good”.

7. No mention of hedge line being “protected” by the hedgerow’s act as per the Symonds and Sampson report on the portal as well as being co-owned with neighbour.

8. Only Class A trees are to be preserved, when BSA states classes B & C are of importance for preservation (particularly if under TPO) and RPA’s must also be calculated for these classes.

 

We need evidence-based answers to these inaccuracies and evidence as to why the buildings cannot be positioned at least 3m from the trees on the northern boundary to protect them and their habitats. Also a BNG report that demonstrates a genuine commitment to the long term welfare of this 2 acre established, protected site.

 

These inaccuracies are of grave concern at this late stage of application process particularly when these mistakes could result in the destruction of an established and protected ecosystem that could have been mitigated.

 

Matt Butcher - Application No.  24/00285/FULL

 

The proposed Graff waste water systems for 32 people work by cleaning the water before releasing it to the water table.

The application shows, seven workshops supporting up to 18 individuals.

The first floor of Unit 7 supports 17 people on site.

The applicants family of four live onsite using 142 litres per head on average.

Excluding the coffee shop this totals 39 potential daily users.

 

Also to consider Page 9 of the applicants Opportunities and Constraints document showing the vision for the site, with over forty individuals at an event.

 

The Senior Advisor to the Environment Agency Caroline Sutton and her colleague Sarah Squire recently noted material inaccuracies in the applicant’s suggestion of 50 litres of water consumption per person per day, correcting it to 100 litres.

 

If we match Mid Devons Chief Ecologist officer Tom Whitlock’s rational of worst case scenario (as used in his light pollution comments) the additional water to the land will be:

Not including the coffee shop and future events held onsite.

3500 litres from the 7 workshops and the first floor of unit 7.

568 litres from the applicants family.

 

This far exceeds the applicants estimation of 1000 litres per day by factor of four.

 

For those who are less familiar with Stoodleigh, the land is a mix of yellow and grey marl clay and does not drain well.  SW water recently confirmed connection to the mains sewer is possible.  Their ‘Site Proximity’ document states applications must “Make provisions for sustainable development proposals which avoid adverse impacts from polluting emissions”.

 

How can a craft hub not introduce oils, solvents and paints plus the required chemical cleaning products to the waste water?

Graff themselves state: “Any solvents, paint thinners, and oil-based products should never be disposed of down drains or toilets”

And from the plants, release “Into the environment usually into a flowing water course i.e. river, brook or stream”

 

There are no such outlets on the site. Therefore 3500 litres of water will be added daily to the immediate area. I have concerns over the potential flooding of the site and the surrounding land used for grazing of sheep and horses and houses a domestic bore hole. If contaminants do enter the treatment plants, the water released will spread and contaminate the surrounding land.

 

To mitigate this can the councillors seriously consider the absolute requirement to connect to mains drainage or vastly reduce the scale and ambition of the application to limit the potential number of people onsite. Despite the cost of mains connection being high, in the words of Friends of the Earth: “Planet over profit”.

 

Alyson Murray - Application No.  24/00285/FULL

 

We are concerned that this proposed commercial development breaches Policy DM18, where it states that the development should be of appropriate use and scale for its location. The size may relate to the footprint of the existing usage, however the proposal for up to 9 businesses and a café open to the public, versus the original single business use, represents vastly expanded commercial use, not in scale within this rural location and conservation area.

 

Also contrary to Policy DM18, this development in a countryside setting, given its size and scale, would have an adverse impact on the local road network.

 

The Mid Devon Local Plan 2013-2033 clearly sets out the location priorities for development activity, listing market towns and some smaller towns and villages. Stoodleigh is not on this list. We understand a site not in the target development zones can come forward according to market demand, however, demand has not been established and based on the number of objections from the local community nor is the local benefit. We believe this breaches Policy S14. The current Mid Devon Plan states in the spatial survey that there are no unallocated commercial development sites in rural Mid Devon, so we struggle to understand the logic in

adding further capacity in an unsuitable, unsustainable location when it is not required by the region, let alone the village, also breaching Policy DM18.

 

Residents appreciate the need to revive this disused brownfield site, but scale and appropriateness are crucial so as not to harm the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Even the Conservation Officer has expressed concern and disappointment over the ‘stark and industrial appearance within the rural setting’ of the main cladding material of black painted timber (adjusted from dark grey metal). Doors and windows in the Northern elevation will have a particular impact on light pollution and an adverse impact on the valley beyond. We ask the Councillors that these openings are removed. The spaces already have windows and doors to the Southern Elevation. Earlier this year, permission for an application overlooking the same valley(23/01446/MFUL) for a riding arena to replace an equestrian barn was granted subject to the removal of all window openings on the West elevation and roof lights to the Southern elevation to ‘avoid light pollution and light spill’. There are evident inconsistencies in approach when it comes to the proposal under discussion.

 

In summary, despite planning policy in place to protect the countryside from inappropriate commercial development, we are dismayed to see that this proposal is recommended for approval. We ask that the disproportionate scale, design and economic demand are reconsidered.

 

Amanda Baggott - Application No.  24/00285/FULL

 

I would like to draw attention to the bat habitat within the Shadowponds plot, particularly to the Devon Bank hedgerow and trees,

adjacent to the existing sheds. It forms the boundary of Shadowponds and the neighbouring property to the North elevation.

A member of The Bat Conservation Trust and Devon Bat Group, took readings via an echo sonic meter, over a number of evenings

in June 2024 around 10pm. The results are shown in your pack. These readings demonstrate the flight paths and foraging patterns

within the Shadowponds site, most notably over the existing sheds, hedgerow and trees. Four species of bat were identified.

The bats predominantly follow the line of the trees and hedgerow of the Northern boundary. Including over one hundred recordings

at the existing shed which has an open rear access with a 2ft opening below the roof. The report sited the concentration of bats being

in the building adjacent to building 2 in the applicant’s Lakeway bat survey. This building was not included in any of the images

provided in the Lakeway survey. The Government's website talks of the Wildlife and Countryside act 1981 which states: "it is an

offence to disturb bats while they occupy a structure or place used for shelter or protection".

The report concludes by saying: "a proposed application is likely to negatively affect bats or their roosting, foraging or commuting

habits".

 

Our bat representative said it was one of the biggest concentrations of bat activity he had ever seen. He informed us that bats roost

both in structures, trees and underground. Please can you also consider the two huge soil mounds to the east and west of the

site(created over 30 years ago ). These mounds are within an established woodland and are so big they could keep 'stable temperature

environments' in the Winter (as specified by the Governments website), these could be the actual nesting sites that have not been

investigated and should be looked at.

 

I'm astonished that the applicant’s own bat survey did not include night time flight recordings, but only included visual observations

during day time and 2 automated bat detectors. Nonetheless the applicants report still identified 9 species of bat in total. This is

huge!

 

As this is a material planning consideration, has the applicant applied for a Bat Mitigation License (A13)?  The village is not against revitalisation of this site per se, there are alterations that could be made to ensure that the significant bat population is not affected. Adding conditions that would ensure careful expert monitoring during the demolition and build. In addition to the bat boxes specified, a bat loft could easily be incorporated within the roof space of one or more of the buildings.

 

As a compromise, perhaps the Councillors could consider not allowing windows on the northern boundary?

 

Matt Parker - Application No.  24/00285/FULL

 

Comments of Objection, carefully citing planning policy, now stand at 33 and yet the Officer’s Report condenses these into a half page summary, whilst the 7 Comments of Support are afforded a full page and a half summary. This does not suggest an equitable analysis of local opinion. The proposed development would contradict Policy DM9 in that it would not positively contribute to the area’s rural character, but would irrevocably damage both rural character and amenity.

 

The impact of light pollution should be considered with particular regard to the Dark Sky Reserve status of Exmoor National Park. Stoodleigh is a conservation area, and an area of environmental quality, this site in particular is in the conservation area and established woodland with a TPO. As with Policy DM28, the lack of need for this development has clearly been expressed by the village, as well as there being no unallocated commercial development sites in rural areas of Mid Devon as per the 2013-2033 plan, confirming that there is no need for this type of general industrial

development. Therefore approving this would be a subsequent breach of Policy DM27 as well as Policy DM28.

 

Policy DM27 also suggests if an alternative, less harmful location can be found it must be considered, and there are plenty of empty commercial units and spaces in more suitable locations. You will be aware of the Tiverton Work Hub co-working space, complete with meeting rooms, which is due to open in February 2025. In the Planning Officers report, point 9.2, the applicant seems to have omitted Bampton and Tiverton. This area is already amply provided for.

 

Is there an economic viability report submitted by the applicant, as we have struggled to locate this? Using our own informed estimates, based on market values, a development of this scale would cost in the region of £1,243,000, against potential rental income of £41,000 pa. This would suggest that to breakeven it would take the applicant a minimum of 30 years. Policy DM19 suggests that if a site can demonstrate lack of financial success over the course of 18 months, the council will re-consider alternative uses. Could an Article 4 Direction be placed on this site?

 

Stoodleigh residents are largely peace-loving with a constructive attitude to appropriate development within their community. However the strength of opposition to this plan is unusual and should not be overlooked. We have been open to constructive dialogue with the applicant, but none has been forthcoming.

 

Cllr Steve Keable, Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration – Application No. 24/00814/FULL

 

 

The proposal is considered to be acceptable in that the change of use of the building would not harm the ability of Tiverton to provide for its community use needs.

 

The building has been vacant since 2022 and no alternative community use has been secured.

 

The lead-up and public consultation in February of this year provided the opportunity to for alternative proposition but no viable option was received. 

 

The provision of flexible workspace in the form of offices within a work hub is considered to be a suitable alternative use for the building and demand for this use within the community has been demonstrated, it will also increase town centre footfall that will support retail and other services.

 

The Council has long held aspirations to develop flexible workspace in the District and has been an aim in the Corporate Plan and Economic Strategy, supported by our Economy (now Economy and Assets) PDG.  Knowing that in other towns, town-centre based work hubs support regeneration of their towns and wider businesses by bringing in footfall, using local café facilities, services and shops, as well as supporting business start-ups and growth, we see this building as an ideal opportunity to provide this for Tiverton.

 

This proposal will complement, not compete, with existing offer elsewhere in the District, for instance the Business Innovation Hub at Petroc, also funded by Shared Prosperity Funding from Mid Devon, offers access to innovative digital technology and equipment as well as conference facilities and meeting rooms.  This hub will address a gap for home-workers and self-employed seeking business space from which to network, collaborate and work, providing hot-desking, studio offices, confidential booths as well as services such as a business postal address.

 

The Market Centre building is a unique asset of the Council’s in that it has low marketvalue.  Therefore, unlike our retail units, it is ideally placed for a low-income opportunity that will support multiple businesses.  The benefits are for the town’s wider economy.  We could not provide this opportunity from any of our other buildings.