Agenda item

To receive any questions and or statements relating to any items of the Council powers/ duties or which otherwise affects the District and items on the agenda from members of the public.

Goff Welchman

 

Question 1:

It had been brought to this Council’s attention about the parking signage error. I wish to know how many Mid Devon car parks had this or similar errors, what it would cost to permanently rectify the error, and, as Mid Devon’s parking fines revenue had recently increased, how many of those fines related to the incorrect signage, and would the motorists be contacted and reimbursed?

 

Response from Cabinet Member for Finance, Governance and Risk:

A new sign was erected within Market Place to address issues with a coach bay that was being regularly used by cars for parking. This sign wrongly asserted that members of the public could not park for more than 2 hours but did display the correct level of tariffs. Three other permanent signs located throughout the car park area were correct and displayed the correct tariffs.

 

The sign had now been corrected and a review of all signs in the district carried out two weeks ago, showed they were all displaying the current and right tariffs for parking. No enforcement action was taken against any members of the public as a result of this temporary sign being in place and so no customers had been affected. There was no cost to rectify the mistake as a simple overlay could be used to correct the mistake.

 

Question 2:

The Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension Phase B covered land from Post Hill down to the canal. I had been repeatedly verbally assured, that the area south of West Manley Lane was included in order to protect it from speculative planning applications, and would be permanently retained as a green space. However, two concerns had now arisen.

 

a). One new build had recently been approved on the south side of West Manley Lane, which in my view could set a precedent for further development.

 

b). Angela Rayner was intending to allow Planning Officers to approve building applications, without recourse to Councillors, as long as they adhered to the approved Local Plan. Therefore would this Council publicly confirm that which I had been verbally promised privately, that there would be absolutely no further housing allowed between West Manley Lane and the canal?

 

Response from Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration:

For means of clarity the area south of West Manley Lane (WML) was not included within the allocated Tiverton EUE ‘to protect it from speculative planning applications’. The area of land south of WML / north of the Grand Western Canal (GWC) was identified as ‘landscape’ within the Illustrative Masterplan of the Adopted Tiverton EUE Masterplan SPD as a means to provide a parkland setting (with the character of a country park) to the south of the EUE. The Adopted Mid Devon Local Plan showed all the land between the former railway line and the GWC as green infrastructure. 

 

A new dwelling was recently approved (application 24/01182/FULL) on the southern side of WML. The site had previously been the subject of an appeal decision (APP/Y1138/W/19/3239009); application No. 19/00182/FULL) that confirmed that the application site was not within the area identified as green infrastructure. On this basis, the principle for development on this site was agreed at Appeal. The Council, however, maintained its position that no development would be permitted south of WML. Each application was also assessed on its own merit and therefore there was no assumption that Application 24/01182/FULL would set a precedent for future development.

 

The Council was bound by various levels of Planning Policy and Guidance which were under constant review and, as highlighted, Government had recently set out planning reform proposals which this Council would need to consider and reflect upon. However, whilst those considerations were underway, the Cabinet Member confirmed that the current Adopted Mid Devon Local Plan, the Adopted Masterplan SPD and the evolving Area B Masterplan, identified the area as parkland and that the Council had made a commitment that there would be no development south of West Manley Lane.

 

Question 3:

In view of Angela Rayner’s intentions just mentioned plus the news this week, would this Council now remove the reserve designation of the land around Tidcombe Hall from the Local Plan at the earliest opportunity, re-designating it as a protected green space, and if so, when?

 

Response from the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration:

Application 24/00045/MOUT for up to 100 dwellings at Tidcombe Hall was refused planning permission on the 8 August 2024. Although it has been refused, the site remained a contingency site in the Adopted Mid Devon Local Plan 2013-2033. It should also be noted that the planning application covered a greater area of land than identified within the Local Plan. To remove the site from the Adopted Local Plan required a statutory process – the Council could not simply choose to change the status of the site, or remove any allocations afforded to it.

 

In conformity with the statutory process, the current Adopted Mid Devon Local Plan and its site allocations were currently under review.

 

In light of recent Government announcements in relation to Planning Policy (through the revised National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF), Plan for Growth and Housing delivery tests etc), it would be necessary to consider the implications for planning policy within Mid Devon and updates would be provided to Members and the wider public as soon as possible. The Council’s intentions, in the light of this week’s Government announcements was to produce a new Local Development Scheme in the New Year.

 

Supplementary statement and questions:

This Council poured around £23 million into 3 Rivers gamble, I believe the final losses that were claimed to be only a couple of millions, also this Council’s housing pot not long ago contained about £24 million, yet after the disclosure concerning around £1.8 million that would need to be refunded to over charged Council tenants and the Housing was now reported just to have enough funds.

 

Question 1:

Where did the rest of the £24 million go?

 

Question 2:

Had the true loss of 3 Rivers been covered up

 

Question 3:

What happened to the St Georges Court, luxury fixtures and fittings that were removed due the current refurbishment and had appeared to have vanished overnight?

 

Mr Dermot Elworthy:

 

Conventionally, planning requirements had been founded on a presumption of favour in a planning application. Cases of a sensitive or contentious nature usually had been referred to a Planning Committee. By and large, this arrangement had worked well for a long time.

 

However, Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, had taken it upon herself to ride roughshod over a well-established procedure by relegating authority directly to unelected bodies. By assuming such centralised power, she had, at a stroke, destroyed the democratic process and at the same time had circumvented Local Government’s role in planning considerations, thus rendering such involvements largely irrelevant.

 

He mention this because for almost six years the question of the proposed Tidcombe Hall development had hung like a Damoclesian sword over residents of East Tiverton opposing this wholly inappropriate scheme, as well as consuming an inordinate amount of the

Council’s time. Therefore, in the light of the Housing Secretary’s authoritarian approach, it must be prudent, nay, essential, for the Council to strengthen the conclusions of two Planning Committees in the outright rejection of this particular scheme. To this end, the reinforcing of the Council’s position must start with the elimination of the Tidcombe Hall land from its contingency category as contained in the Master Plan. For as long as this area is defined as a “contingency”, it would remain vulnerable to predation. It would be remembered that the Planning Inspector in his Hartnoll Farm judgment established that the Mid Devon District Council did indeed have the requisite five-year provision, so there can be no cogent reason for retaining the Tidcombe land for this purpose. Its deletion from the Plan should afford increased protection from the ravages of outside influences and he urged the Council to please effect its removal from the Master Plan as a matter of urgency.

 

Chair, on a different matter, the Cabinet reports of the meetings of 12 November and 10 December relating to the Grand Western Canal Conservation Area. Regarding the meeting of 30^th October, the minutes pointedly had excluded any reference to the more than four thousand, three hundred concerned people who responded to an associated petition and whose consideration was so peremptorily excluded from debate. All these signatories were in opposition to the changes proposed to the Conservation Area, more than seventeen hundreds of whom are local ratepayers.  It was of paramount importance that the numerical weight of these objections and the opinions expressed there in be included in the full Council’s deliberations of this matter.

The Chair explained that as the questions had not been provided in writing in advance of the meeting that a written response would be provided.

 

Mr Peter Drew

 

In the story of The Emperor's New Clothes one lone voice points out the obvious truth that was contrary to the prevailing opinion. However, in this case I do not believe I am alone in saying that a canal denuded of trees represents the antithesis of what this Council should be striving to achieve in terms of conservation.

 

Officers would have you to believe that the 11 species of bat that the Bat Trust for Ornithology (BTO) had recorded on my land would protect almost 1000 trees on my property, but over 95% of them do not have bat roosts and could be removed if you support the recommendation. Planning permission was granted by permitted development order for buildings covering 50 % of my large garden, so once the trees are removed a 4 m high building parallel to the canal could be erected which would destroy its attractive sylvan character. My property was not a County Wildlife Site, Local Nature Reserve or Country Park and in any event planning policies were not engaged when exercising permitted development rights. Officers claim the trees could be assessed for a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) but I asked Mr Marsh, Director of Place & Economy to do this months ago. No response had ever been forthcoming.

 

The Council says it was under a duty to review conservation areas but that duty had existed for 30 years. In any event the relevant statutory test had not changed yet your Officers would have you believe that when they apply it to the identical geographic areas, such as my property and Snakes Wood, which had not materially altered, that they are entitled to reach the opposite conclusion. However when I ask what had changed to justify their claim that black was the new white they merely recite their own case and don't answer the question.

 

It was clear that the officers had done a shoddy job. Contrary to Historic England advice they had not visited at various times in different seasons and so whereas Mark Baker (Country Park Manager, Devon County Council) and his excellent team regularly maintain the hedgerows, the Council’s Officers had simply recorded high hedges that potentially block important views. They had not visited private land nor even contacted private landowners. As a result of my question to Cabinet it had been established that the officers had destroyed the historic records in their attempt to force this through.

 

I had provided evidence of what officers get up to when they were not properly scrutinised. On a single planning application they firstly revised a section 106 agreement to cancel a 30-mph speed limit that had been agreed without telling the Planning Committee. Secondly they agreed a Phasing Plan with a developer that directly contradicts the planning conditions that were agreed by the Planning Committee. Third, conditions relating to drainage have not been enforced, which has resulted in silt pouring into the canal at Sampford Peverell for over 18 months, flooding private property and blocking the foul sewer, which in turn had led to sewage going via surface water drains into the canal. For these and many other reasons there had been a breakdown of trust because some officers had failed to act with integrity.

 

Having regard to the above, and my detailed submission including analysis on pages 235 and 236 of the Public Pack that shows planning policy has not materially changed, I repeat the substance of the question I asked at Cabinet, which the Council failed to answer, namely: Given that the statutory test was identical to when the canal was designated, list the top ten most important changes between 1994 and 2024 that Officers say justify reaching the opposite conclusion in respect of Snakes Wood and/or my property at 16 Turnpike?

 

Response from Cabinet Member for Planning, Economic Regeneration:

As you would be aware; the Council had undertaken a detailed and thorough review of the Conservation Area and had undertaken extensive consultation with Members ensuring that additional opportunities for public engagement were introduced in order to ensure that the public could take full confidence in the proposals being set out and had the fullest opportunity to engage and inform the work. Furthermore, changes had been made to the Conservation Area boundary and the Management Plan in order to reflect public comments made and the additional evidence and information received.  This demonstrated that we were a listening Council who were keen to protect our important heritage assets.

With this in mind, I must take issue with some of the statements you have made this evening:

 

Firstly – in suggesting that a “shoddy job” has been done. It has not: a thorough and detailed exercise had been completed and the document that now resulted was fit for purpose and robust.

 

Secondly – in stating that historic records have been destroyed to support this review process. No documents have been destroyed in undertaking this work and this was a total misrepresentation of information. The fact was that Members asked officers to identify information from the time of the creation of the Conservation Area – through which officers identified and provided a copy of the original report, dating from 1994 – which you yourself have since referenced. This 1994 report unfortunately contained scant information and did not explain what rationale underpinned the original conservation area boundary. Officers had therefore sought to establish a boundary in a manner which was complaint with current best practice and which was evidence based. The reasons for excluding your own property and Snakes Wood from the boundary had previously been set out in responses provided to you, most recently at a meeting of Cabinet. Equally, the protections which continued to be afforded to Snakes Wood and other habitats had also been set out. 

 

Finally, This was not the “Top of the Pops” and so I would not be listing the ‘top ten’ most important changes as suggest, rather I would be reiterating that this was a robust piece of work which had been subject to full and thorough public consultation and which was based upon established best practice. I trust that Council would also recognise this when it comes to the relevant time this evening. 

 

Paul Elstone

 

Question 1:

Can it be confirmed if the Canal Conservation Area Petition signatures were checked and validated by Democratic Services. That the check confirmed that there were over one thousand five hundred (1,500) Mid Devon resident signatures. If not checked why not?

 

Response from the Leader of the Council:

The full petition details were only provided to the Council on the 29 October 2024, less than 48 hours before the meeting on the 30 October 2024, which confirmed that the signatures were not only from Mid Devon but from all over the UK, and other countries around the world.  The Council were therefore unable to check and verify over 4000 names within that time period. Hence the constitutional requirement for 10 days’ notice.  However, as the petition was not resubmitted the signatures were not checked and validated subsequently as that was not a good use of officer’s time.  This was fully debated at Cabinet and the Grand Western Joint Advisory Committee meetings and Members had been fully cognisant of the strength of feeling of the petition in arriving at their decision.

 

Question 2:

The MDDC Constitution Section 10.2 Page 99 cannot be any clearer about the requirement for Full Council to debate any petition with over 1,500 local resident’s signatures. It is on record and in answer to a public question, that the Canal Conservation Area Petition would not be debated at Full Council “as the decision had been taken by Cabinet on the 12th November 2024”. This shows no regard to the views and experience of all Full Council Members and just as important the representations made to these Members by their electorate. Can the Chair ask that the Monitoring Officer fully explain why she did not intervene, as it is her role to do so? This to remind the Council Leader of the Constitution requirements, but instead allowed the Council Leader and Cabinet more broadly to very clearly ignore to the Constitution?

 

Response from the Leader of the Council:

The Council had adhered to the constitutional rules. The constitution required a minimum of 1500 signatures from a Mid Devon resident or a person who worked or studied in Mid Devon for it to be debated at Full Council.  The Council was notified that a petition would be presented, however, a link to the Petition was provided on the 22 October 2024 which had over 4000 signatures. The Council made repeated attempts to contact the petitioner in advance to ask about the signatory details i.e. where they resided to confirm they were as required. However, this was only provided on the 29 October 2024, less than 48 hours before the meeting on the 30 October 2024, which confirmed that the signatures were from all over the UK, and other countries around the world, which did not meet the requirements in the Councils Constitution. The Council was therefore unable to check and verify the legitimacy of the over 4000 names i.e. checking they were Mid Devon electors. That was why the constitution specifically required 10 days’ notice to ensure officers could verify for Members that it was a valid petition.

 

In this case, the Council was unable to verify that it was valid, in time for the meeting so the petition was not in compliance with the Council’s constitution.  The Council, however, rather than reject it completely on a technicality, permitted the petition organiser to speak for 5 minutes. As Leader he did respond and speak to this at Full Council and explained the item would be coming to Cabinet for discussion, so the petitioners knew exactly what would be happening. There were also a couple of other Members who commented after the Leaders comments. When discussed at Cabinet, sadly the Leader was ill, but appreciated the public participation and discussion by the Cabinet. The item was also on the agenda for tonight following the recommendation from Cabinet and he was certain all Members were aware of the petition presented to Full Council and he encouraged all Members to consider the matter when it was considered on the agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 3:

This Council has publicly announced that the Post Hill site has now been sold for affordable and social home development. What exactly was the full sale price?

 

Response from Cabinet Member for Finance, Governance and Risk:

The Council had received £1million + VAT for the Post Hill site. This was a combination of the site value and a contribution to other Council costs in enabling the development.

 

Question 4:

Have Building Control fully signed off on the complete St George’s Court development. If not, why not?

 

Response from Cabinet Member for Housing, Asset and Property:

Yes

 

Question 5:

Who holds the insurance liability for the St Georges Court Development and are there any insurance cover exclusions for flood risk including the underground car park?

 

Response from Cabinet Member for Finance, Governance and Risk:

St Georges Court site was insured in the normal way as an asset through the Council’s property insurers with flood peril included as part of the schedule of cover. Tenants would be responsible for providing contents insurance for their own possessions as was the case across all our Council housing.

 

 

Question 6:

It was known that Tiverton Town Council Members have been given the opportunity to inspect the St Georges Court Development now it is complete. Will interested members of the public be granted the same opportunity, and if not why not?

 

Response from Cabinet Member for Housing, Asset and Property:

The visit was arranged at the request of the Town Council for Town Councillors.  In particular for those Councillors who would shortly be representing the first tenants of the St Georges Court Development. This visit was able to happen as it occurred immediately before the Council began the occupation of the first units on the site. Due to the ongoing adaptions work in the flats and imminent occupation of the first houses I am not able to confirm that a future open visit for members of the public of the same type will be practical or appropriate. Mid Devon Housing are nonetheless planning a community event for new residents and neighbours towards Spring in the new year to celebrate the opening of the new community orchard and the planned seasonal planting of fruit trees along the riverfront of the site.

 

Supplementary question:

Mr Elstone made reference to how he was disappointed to hear that St Georges Court given all the public concerns about build cost, build quality and various other issues that residents were not offered a visit on the development. He made reference to feedback from the Councillor’s visit on Monday there were various concerns raised, the word ‘unsafe’ was used.

 

Tim Bridger (These were read out by the Chair of the Council)

 

Question 1:

The Mid Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and the savings – the only cashable savings on the list are car parking increases, fee income increases, and cutting staff posts. There are no more ‘efficiencies’ to be found. How then are Cabinet recommending this as a strategy when the total cashable savings element is barely a quarter of the total required amount over the next 4 years?

 

Question 2:

MTFP – staff ‘efficiencies’ and not replacing vacant posts  - How do the staff feel about not only being considered expendable, but any decision they take to leave the organisation being considered a benefit, as a saved cost? With that attitude, is it any wonder that vacancies and sickness absence are high?

 

Question 3:

MTFP and transfer or assets to Town and Parish Councils – can you clarify which assets you think a Town or Parish would be prepared to pay for, and why any Town or Parish should pay for the privilege of taking on and running a service or asset that MDDC considered to be loss-making?

 

Question 4:

The Market Drop In Centre – what was the cost to the public purse of this conversion; given that only six  people attended the consultation event, how is the interest considered ‘strong’ that there is a need; given that there have been two hot desking buildings in Tiverton previously and both have failed within months, and that there is a ‘incubator’ zone at Petroc that is yet to gain any residents – and indeed that MDDC itself is considering using space at Phoenix House for this purpose - how can taking this community asset out of community use be considered a good idea and a good use of taxpayers monies? Would simply allowing vacant space at PH to be used on a trial basis not be a more cost-effective way to test the market.

 

Question 5:

The land at Post Hill transferred to Housing Association – how much was paid for this land by MDDC, and what were the losses on the transfer to the HA? Were these losses accounted for within the General Fund or within the borrowing on the Capital Program – i.e. a cost to the taxpayer for the next generation to come?

 

Question 6:

What is the predicted scale of losses on the Haddon Heights development, including the hugely inflated price paid for the land initially under the 3Rivers scheme?

 

Question 7:

Boxing Day ‘hunt meet’ - Given the acknowledged lawbreaking that takes place on  ‘trailhunts’ and the fact that MDDC as the landowner knowingly allowed a criminal enterprise to use its assets for furthering their criminal aims, when will MDDC as the landowner take their duties seriously and act to prevent use of their assets for lawbreaking?

 

The Chair explained that as the questions had not been provided in writing in the required period in advance of the meeting that a written response would be provided.