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:
Chris Howard – referred to Application No. 24/01618/FULL and asked the following questions:-
Q1: Are Members aware of Devon County Council’s guidance notes on Sustainable Drainage Systems? Section 9, ‘Requirements for planning’ states the need for consideration of drainage at the earliest possible stage. It also suggests that a major development (10 houses or more) should receive greater scrutiny. Here we have two developments of five houses ie 10, with obvious collaboration and shared drainage strategy.
‘Sustainable Drainage System – Guidance for Devon (2023)’ states that a discharge of a condition should only be approved for a development if there is a clear maintenance schedule for the attenuation tank. I have not seen this schedule on the mid Devon portal.
Q2: Bearing all of this in mind, does the Council believe that this development is following best practice as laid out by Devon County Council in their document ‘Sustainable Drainage System – Guidance for Devon (2023)’?
Responsible development
Q3: Are Members aware that when the plans to run the pipes across our properties first appeared on the Mid Devon portal, neither us nor our neighbour had been approached by the developer. We had a tip off from a neighbour. Last summer, we received phone calls from South West Water, giving 7 days’ notice of a proposed site visit to our gardens. We had not agreed to this and no planning permission had been approved at this stage. We also received an e-mail from one of the developers suggesting that we should cooperate with them and get a better deal because South West Water will ultimately make a requisition and come and, to quote, ‘bash a trench’ through our gardens. There also appears to have been no attempt to redesign the number or layout of the houses to accommodate an alternative drainage strategy.
Q4: Does the Committee believe this is the trademark of responsible and considerate development?
Connection to adjacent development
Q5: Are Members aware that the drainage will connect to the adjacent development 19/00914/FULL. We did not object to this application in the first instance because our properties were not directly impacted. However, retrospective planning meant the pipes were re-routed to come across ours and our neighbour’s gardens. At this point we had no formal right to object which seems extremely unreasonable. We are told that our only way to object to this adjacent development is via a civil action.
Q6: Will the Committee support us in obliging the developers of 24/01618/FULLand 19/00914/FULL to look again at the collaborative design of the whole site with a view to keeping drainage off third party land?
Stephanie Howard – referred to Application No. 24/01618/FULL and asked the following questions:-
Attenuation tank
Q1: Are Members aware that the attenuation tank is just shy of the volume of Tiverton swimming pool, (21 x 9 x 1.5 metres)? This will be located within a few metres of ours and our neighbours’ boundaries. Who exactly will be responsible for the regular maintenance of this tank bearing in mind there are two applicants making use of it?
Q2: How will the Council ensure accountability for the ownership and maintenance of this tank especially regarding any potential failings?
Route
Q3: The development will be accessed through Clay Lane. Are the Committee aware of any reason, other than financial viability for the developer, why the drainage should not go along Clay Lane or other public highways instead of through other people’s property?
Only one trial pit
Q4: Are Members aware that only one trial pit appears to have been dug on site for this development of five houses? There appears to be no indication on the portal where this was excavated, and I cannot see any accompanying technical memo. The assumption seems to have been made that the whole site will be unsuitable based on this one pit.
Q5: Do Members feel this is adequate testing regarding trial pits to rule out on-site infiltration tanks which would be higher up the South West Water hierarchy?
Site visit
Q6: When making such a controversial decision that will have such a significant effect on local residents, do the Committee feel that the Planning Officer and Committee Members should undertake a site visit to look at the residents’ homes that will suffer this destruction?
Duty of care
Q7: While we understand new houses are needed in Mid Devon, do the Committee feel that it is right for new developments to involve the destruction of parts of other residents’ properties and gardens, because adequate drainage plans have not been appropriately planned at the start?
Q8: Do new developers have more rights than existing residents?
Q9: Do the Committee feel that Mid Devon District Council have a duty of care to residents’ wellbeing and protect such violations of their homes and properties?
Pamela Disney – referred to Application No. 24/01618/FULL and asked the following questions:-
Q1: Are Members aware that plans have been drawn up without any true understanding of the route it will take? Drawing a line on a map cannot take into account the potential damage to patios, tarmacked drives, flower beds, 3 hedges (and their biodiversity), lawn, clay pipes, and wooden fences in its path. It will also severely hamper vehicular and pedestrian access to the homes whilst work is in progress.
Q2: Does the Committee believe that residents should be subjected to this intrusion, distress and impact on their properties because the developer’s original drainage plans have not worked out?
Michael Cuthbertson - referred to Application No. 24/01618/FULL and asked the following questions:-
The officer’s report states that “the surface water drainage scheme proposed under the application before Committee has already been found to be acceptable under application reference 19/00914/FULL”.
Q1: Are the Committee aware that this was by way of a condition discharge application (discharging an already discharged condition) which did not require consultation to neighbouring properties & statutory consultees?
NB: This only actually came to light when 24/01281/FULL (another application to vary Condition 3 of 22/00432/FULL) was consulted on and drew several objections before being withdrawn with the developers “looking again at an alternative drainage solution for this project.” However the condition discharge application contained the very same drainage strategy!
Q2: Are the Committee aware that there is an approximate 3m drop in elevation from the hydro brake chamber at the edge of the application boundary to the surface water sewer in The Spinney? Approximately 2m of this level change occurs between the boundary of Eastfield House and the proposed connection to the surface water sewer in The Spinney. This fall needs to be achieved over 79.4m of pipe – an average gradient of 1 in 26.8 over the entire length.
Q3: Is this an acceptable gradient and if so, what depth of trench will be required to achieve this fall?
Q4: Are the Committee aware that only 3 properties in The Spinney were included in consultation for a proposed scheme that would extensively disrupt access all 6 properties with driveways on The Spinney (Nos. 1-4 The Spinney, plus “Beacon View” & “Avenell” whose addresses are on Ashley Road), given that the surface water sewer connection point is at the end of the driveway to No. 3 The Spinney which is the first house in the close?
Q5: Are the Committee aware that the proposed foul water drainage scheme will connect a further 10 dwellings to an existing foul sewer serving 3-5 dwellings? Sewer construction guidance states that foul sewer pipes serving 10 houses or less should be 100mm in diameter, with more than 10 houses requiring 150mm diameter pipes.
It is believed that the works in 3rd party land to commence the foul sewer connection have already taken place, though the foul water scheme has not been approved for either this application or 19/00914/FULL
Q6: Would the Committee undertake a site visit to determine if this is the case?
Q7: In general, would the Committee undertake a site visit to assess the impact of the proposed scheme to neighbouring residents and the environment?