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.

Micheal Dearden – referred to Application No. 25/00346/PIP

Question 1: If this development is approved, how are the developer and Mid Devon County Council (MDCC) going to ensure that flooding does not happen as a result of it and, if it does, will they take responsibility for putting right the damage caused?

My reasons for this question, and there are several. In response to the 47 people who objected on the grounds of probable flooding and future subsidence of their properties, the Housing Officers’ comment in his “recommend approval” report was: “The site is in Flood Zone 1 which represents the lowest probability of sea or river flooding.” I agree but this is referring to the river and has nothing to do with our concerns other than we are concerned about the increase of raw sewage being dumped into the river should this application go ahead. Our concerns are about the increase in the already experienced flooding and heavy run off we have today from this proposed building site, it being well above us. Covering the hilltop with tarmac and concrete, as would be the case, will hugely exacerbate the situation. The existing land drainage is inadequate. The site's underlying structure is highly impermeable triassic and permian upper marl transitioning to valley gravel and rainwash along the north boundary of the site. Following heavy rainfall, rainwater filters through upper soil layers, is trapped by the impermeable rock below, seeps to the north to issue behind existing dwellings in Silver Street, we are one of this properties, or into Smallbrook, which has seen flooded houses just the other year. The reason this low area floods is that the culvert passing under Silver Street at that point cannot cope with the volume of water coming down thee brook. I hear that to correct this problem would cost in excess of £100,000. The Flood Hub of UK states: planners and developers have a responsibility to ensure future developments are sustainable and do not increase flood risk to the site or surrounding area. We have seen nothing from the developer addressing this very real threat.

Richard Jarman - referred to Application No. 25/00346/PIP

The applicant’s proposal includes an assessment of whether MDDC has met its legal duty to provide plots for self and custom build. However, their figures appear to contradict Mid Devon’s own data.

According to the applicant, only 21 plots have been delivered by the Council. But in response to an FOI request, MDDC confirmed that 70 plots have been approved, with 32 actually built — likely reflecting limited demand rather than under-provision.

Another FOI response confirmed that the shortfall last year stood at just 26 plots. Yet Point 2.6 of the planning officer’s report appears to rely on the applicant’s claim of a 145-plot deficit.

Question 1 - Has the planning officer independently verified the applicant’s figures?

Cllr Charles Kay - referred to Application No. 25/00346/PIP

The Planning in Principle on open countryside and outside the settlement area in Culmstock -  the planning officer has recommended acceptance. This heavily relies on the basis that there is a need for self builds within the local community. DM6 Policy - the number quoted in the report on the self-build list with a Culmstock parish preference is 13. And yet, I know of at least 2 people who have been on the list for years that have now bought houses and another one has emigrated to Denmark. Our local housing needs survey did not highlight a need.

Question 1 - When was MDDC’s self-build list updated and importantly for those wanting to build in Culmstock parish?

Question 2 – When were those people on the self-build list contacted to see if they wanted to still be on it?

Paul Moody - referred to Application No. 25/00346/PIP

Question 1 - Why, even before the technical details stage, has there been no apparent regard (despite South West Water's comments) to the risk of flooding caused by "water" emanating in one form or another from the proposed development, specifically the flooding risk and water damage to many dwellings in Silver Street? 

Judith Fowler - referred to Application No. 25/00346/PIP

Question 1 - Could the authorities please explain how they mean to regulate the design of each individual property in this development? A blanket permission would not be acceptable.  The height of each should be clearly specified and the design of each should complement and match other properties in Culmstock.

Question 2 - How do the developers intend to deal with waste from these properties? Approximately 50 years ago, the gentleman applying to build the bungalow ’ Selfdon’ on Silver Street was denied permission to join the main sewer system in the village, as the system then was overloaded. Any other properties might completely overwhelm the system.

Question 3 - Has the Council plans to update and increase the capacity of the system?

Nikki Padget - referred to Application No. 25/00346/PIP

Question 1 - How many Members of this Committee have visited the site?

John Sedgwick - referred to Application No. 25/00346/PIP

I am the landowner of the property immediately bordering the bend on Uffculme Road, around 50 metres east of the proposed site. We are fortunate to have a lower pedestrian access on our land, allowing us to avoid walking around that corner — a route we otherwise would not feel safe using with our children.

This proposal is likely to attract young families. Yet the only pedestrian route into the village involves walking along a narrow stretch of Uffculme Road with no pavement, around a tight bend with limited visibility — where the 30mph limit is regularly ignored — and often not enough width for two vehicles to pass safely. This route would inevitably be used frequently: not just by parents walking children to school, but for going to the shop, the pub, the church, visiting friends, catching the bus, and other daily needs.

A parent with a reception-aged child, a baby in a pushchair, and morning traffic travelling in both directions represents perhaps the worst-case scenario — but one that is entirely realistic and highlights the danger.

And even for vehicles accessing the proposed site, attempting to achieve the required visibility splays would demand significant hedgerow removal, harming biodiversity — and yet still fall short of national highway standards.

Question 1 - Given these are permanent constraints of the location, how can the site be considered suitable in principle for residential development — and have Devon County Highways actually visited the site?

Susan Dearden – referred to Application No. 25/00346/PIP - question read by the Chair

Question 1 - I would like to ask the Committee how, given the number of valid objections, including that of the Parish Council (and none in support of the application) the planning officer has managed to push our objections aside?

This seems rather undemocratic and I am especially concerned to see that the LivedIn website has not only had the site in question on their website since January but out of the 13 “in the pipeline” developments only three have actual date timelines such as this one in Culmstock. It does rather make one feel you are banging your head against the wall and that it’s a “done deal”.

The facts remain, that the field in question is an agricultural one, that it lies outside the settlement boundary, the sewage plant really is overloaded, the road access and the junction at Town Hill is extremely hazardous. We really do not have any pavements to make life safer for pedestrians, I have lived here nine years so I know what I am talking about! There is a real issue of flooding and water run-off from the field, both Silver Street and the Uffculme Road really do flood.

Question 2 - If there is pressure to build in Culmstock, despite several houses on the market as I write this, then why not on the Linhay site? At least flooding would not be an issue and it lies within the settlement boundary. There would still be issues with infrastructure however.