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:

The recent appeal was always likely to win, due to the new Government housing targets, which tied the inspector’s hands. However, he clearly sympathised with the many objections raised, as he has thrown us the consolation prize of 29 conditions, many of which will act as a deterrent to any developer thinking of taking over the site. Therefore, applications to retrospectively remove the most onerous conditions are highly likely. Will this Council confirm, that any such applications will be robustly refused?

 

Response from the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration:

 

The application of a significant number of conditions as well as obligations in any associated S106 agreement was a typical level of control to be established over a development of this scale. They were not a "consolation prize" but simply reflect the range of issues that a planning authority would reasonably expect to control or secure further details prior to various trigger stages in the development.

 

At this stage it would be pure speculation to discuss what options any developer may seek to pursue in implementing the planning permission and therefore to pre-determine the planning authorities decision on any such proposals would be both premature and represent an unreasonable starting point to our assessment that could place the authority at risk of a further costs award against it.

 

The Inspector in his decision had clearly set out the level of impact principally upon heritage assets and landscape (but also other impacted environments) and confirmed that he considers these impacts to be an acceptable cost in order to secure the 100 dwellings. This would represent the starting point for any consideration of alternative proposals if they are submitted.

 

Question 2:

The Tidcombe Hall area remains vulnerable to further speculative development applications, and even one to enlarge the currently approved plan, due to the original terrible mistake of designating it as a contingency site. Will this Council now commit to removing that designation in the next Local Plan?

 

The residents of Tiverton, and beyond, are bitterly disappointed at, and outraged by what is happening to the Tidcombe Hall area, and expect very positive responses to my questions.”

 

Response from the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration:

 

As you would know, the current Local Plan was adopted by a previous Council and inherited by this Administration.

 

You would also recall, in relation to the Housing Delivery Action Plan that Mid Devon adopted in Spring this year, the Council resolved to exclude the Tidcombe Hall site from early release because of the harms considered arose from the partial control over the site that was available to the applicant, however the Inspector did not accept that those harms were sufficient to prevent development coming forward.

 

As you note, the only way to remove a particular site allocation or designation within an adopted Local Plan is by way of a plan review. As you would also know, the preparation of a new Local Plan is at a relatively early stage. 

 

Before committing to the inclusion or exclusion of any sites or opportunities for development, the Council would need to consider at a strategic level how it intends to deliver the government's new housing numbers that will underpin the allocation of development across the district.   Any Issues and Options document that we progress would be the subject of a wide public consultation which will enable the community of Mid Devon to make clear to the planning authority how they believe growth should be delivered in relation to both location and scale of development.  Until we get to that stage however it would be inappropriate for officers or councillors to commit that individual allocations within the adopted Local Plan would be removed from future Plans for the district.

 

Nick Govier

 

The subject of Anaerobic Digestion Plants in Mid Devon and the conflict between commercial greed, impacts on communities and the environment along with the still to be proven case of supporting net zero remains as strong as ever.

 

I support the motion being proposed with the development of greater transparency for the public, the consultees and applicants being seen as a positive step. Mid Devon carries a disproportionate share of Anaerobic Digestion Plants located in Devon with significant time being consumed by planning officers, Council Members and the public in becoming involved in such applications as a result of the aforementioned tensions.

 

Added to this is the recent involvement of this Councils Enforcement Officer in bringing enforcement action in the face of clear planning condition breaches at one high profile AD location. Again the pursuit of corporate greed ignoring the expected protection afforded to local communities which should have been delivered through this councils very own planning conditions.

 

In light of this position can I please ask this council when discussing the motion they expand the scope of the proposed document and agree:

 

In reaching any planning decision how appropriate and enforceable planning conditions would be, along with explaining the enforcement challenges to date:

 

In reaching any planning decision how important would the health and safety be of local residents (referred to as receptors). This reflecting the statutory guidance from the Government which profiles the need for such plants to be operating a minimum 200m from the nearest receptor. This has previously been profiled as a concern by the Mid Devon Health Officers

 

In reaching any planning decision what consideration is given to the significant investment in the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension. A programme of housing development and road infrastructure improvements which included a core strategic objective to reduce traffic volumes to the east of Tiverton. Recent AD operations have ignored this objective

 

In reaching any planning decision how the applicant can deliver a complete view of the net zero impacts. This includes the need to demonstrate the full impacts of feedstock production including use of large areas of land, sprays and fertilisers, harvesting, transportation of feedstock and digestate over long distances, fuel consumption and plant operation before reaching any energy production.

 

I hope these elements are considered appropriate and I ask these are added to the scope of the proposed document. By bringing understanding and transparency to these themes I believe they will simplify future decision making for AD plants and support the motion before the council this evening.

 

Response from the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration:

 

Thank you, Mr Govier for your question and observations which I know was a central theme and concern for many Mid Devon Councillors. I am sure that these matters will be touched on through discussions this evening and I will also ensure that officers consider the points you raise in the context of any decision reached this evening and with a mind to national and local planning policy positions and requirements.

 

I should however just stress that any policy would necessarily need to consider Anaerobic Digester operations within the District as a whole, and not simply those contained within specific locations within the District.

 

Peter Drew

 

In a decision dated 24 June 2025 the Planning Inspectorate allowed an appeal for 100 dwellings at Tidcombe Hall. Luke Taylor claims that the decision was a “consequence of the recent adjustment to housing targets”. However once again the Lib Dems distort fact from reality.

 

The fact is that the Council chose Tidcombe Hall as a contingency site for 100 dwellings in its adopted Local Plan. It then conceded in advance of the Inquiry that it did not have a 5-year housing land supply. That is exactly the scenario in which the contingency site was designed to be released. The Planning Inspectorate noted the housing land supply figure is expected to fall further as the higher targets take effect but that doesn’t alter the fact that the Council itself chose this as the only contingency site in its adopted Local Plan to be released where there was a shortfall in the housing land supply. The Council cannot therefore blame anyone but itself.

 

In granting planning permission the Inspector found the scheme would have negative effects on the Grand Western Canal Conservation Area. In reaching that view the Conservation Area and Management Plan [CAAMP], which the Council rushed to endorse ahead of the Inquiry, does not appear to have been mentioned in the decision letter; it certainly didn’t make any difference.

 

At the time of endorsing the CAAMP, Mr Keable could not answer a simple question about what had changed to lead the same Council to remove trees on my property and elsewhere from the Conservation Area when the statutory test had not changed. The Council claimed the CAAMP would protect the Canal Conservation Area. However this decision adds to the harm that the Council have caused to the canal by removing protection from tens of thousands of trees and failing to stop pollution, including effluent and silt, from entering the canal at Sampford Peverell.

 

In a recent survey 87% of people said that they trust politicians “not very much or not at all” and that comes as no surprise to me given the track record of this Council. Having refused to issue a public apology even when the Local Government Ombudsman found maladministration by the Council.

 

Question 1:

Would the Council now like to apologise for its failings in these matters?

 

Response from the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration:

 

Thank you, Mr Drew. Talking of distorting fact from reality, let us set some facts straight with regard to your own statements when answering your questions:

 

1. The current Local Plan was adopted under a previous administration with a significantly different membership and based upon information and evidence available at that time. It therefore seems somewhat absurd to suggest that Members within this room should be “blamed” for such a decision.
2. The Council did have a robust housing land supply position which has unfortunately been undermined by slow build out rates, the age of the adopted plan and fundamentally by Government revisions to the Council’s housing target.
3. The Council undertook a thorough review of the GWC Conservation Area which, after a great deal of effort by many Councillors in this room this evening, produced a positive suite of documents with many stakeholders ultimately acknowledging the efforts that the Council had gone to in producing the document and in engaging key stakeholders in a positive and productive manner. And finally; 
4. The Council did not refuse to issue an apology to you. Nor did the LGSCO Ombudsman find Maladministration. Rather, the Ombudsman found that delay had caused you frustration and asked that the Council provide you with a written apology. You received this written apology from the interim Development Management Manager in April and within days of the finding being issued.

 

Paul Elstone

 

Question 1:

Much is being made about the energy efficiency of the ZED PODS modules.

In response to a Freedom of Information Request asking how many electric heaters are fitted at the ZED POD Shapland Place development.  I was advised that four out of the eight properties have Secondary Electric Heaters installed.

The author of the response made an additional comment and in which they said these are “redundant heaters” also “Given the thermal performance of these units they are rarely if ever used”. 

That was spin now the facts.

Are members aware that a report involving Bristol City Council, states that the residents of another ZED POD development not unlike Shapland Place were required to keep their electric ovens switched on this to keep them warm. 

That the modules monitored in the report had (Quote) “Potentials for unusually high usage of energy” (Unquote) ?

 

Question 2:

The Energy Certificates prepared for Shapland Place classifies the development as Energy Rating ‘A’. 

A certificate that makes absolutely no reference to Secondary Electric Heaters being fitted, and which it most certainly should. As a result, the electricity consumption and carbon emission calculations are substantially incorrect. 

Therefore, how can it be said these modules are truly nett zero?

 

Question 3:

It is noted that at least one other ZED POD development is the same. Examination reveals that ZED POD use the same assessor for all of their developments.

Are members aware that landlords can be liable to legal action, fines and even compensations payments for false Energy Certificates?

 

Question 4: 

Over 3 months ago I sent an email to the Cabinet Member for Planning amongst others.   

 

An email that I believe provided irrefutable as built drawing evidence showing that the Shapland Place ZED POD Development does not comply with the Governments Minimum Described Space Standards.  This on 3 separate points.

 

I was promised a response, but nothing has been forthcoming. 

 

When can I expect a response, and a response that fully accepts the points I raised.  Or if not debunks them and in detail and importantly on a point-by-point basis? 

 

Question 5:

Over 3 months ago I also provide irrefutable evidence to the Enforcement Team showing that Shapland Place had been built in breach of 3 planning conditions.

 

 A fourth breach has since been identified and related to overheating.

 

When can I expect a response to the planning breaches identified?  This consistent with the Enforcement Policy.  Especially important given its MDDC themselves who are in breach and with other similar projects ongoing?

 

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 in 10 working days.

 

Nick Quinn

 

I am asking three questions on a matter that affects both the Council and residents.

 

A local news article reported that this Council has agreed to pay ‘compensation’ to tenants affected by the 2002 Housing Rent Error.

 

But the article suggested that the “compensation” would have strings attached and be limited to £500.

 

Yesterday morning, BBC Breakfast interviewed the oldest Postmistress affected by errors in the Post Office Horizon System. She still has not been given any recompense and their compensation scheme is offering less than half her losses.

 

Like the Post Office, this Council appears to be doing everything it can to avoid repaying the money it has overcharged; using “Lawyers Advice” to restrict outright repayments and touting “Compensation payments”.

 

Please remember that this error was made by the Council and resulted in some rents exceeding the maximum level set by the Government.

 

Also remember that the tenants had to pay their inflated rents - if they did not, they would have been evicted.

 

From public information, the overcharge on some properties has been calculated to be more than £14,000.

 

Whilst not all the overcharges are as large, there are a lot of them, totalling £7.5 Million.

 

But the Council is restricting repayments and compensation – only budgeting £1.8 Million.

 

So, this error will have “Unjustly Enriched” the Council by Five Million Pounds. 

 

That is a Big Win for the Council and a Big Loss for the Tenants!

 

All this is all being done in your name, so I ask:

 

Question 1:

Have all Members seen the actual advice given by the Lawyer?

 

Question 2:

Do all Members realise that “Compensation” may be limited to £500?

 

Question 3:

Are all Members happy to accept that the good reputation of this Council will be tarnished by the failure to repay the full amount owed?

 

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 in 10 working days.