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:
With regard to the following questions the Head of Planning and Regeneration provided answers later in the meeting however for clarity the answers have been provided underneath the questions.
Mr Byron referring to Item 11 (Land west of Paullett) stated that in 2013 outline planning permission was given for development on this site with 3 dwellings and 2 cars each (6 vehicles). At that point Highways described access arrangements as not ideal. The Chair of this committee said at that time that access was suitable for a maximum of three dwellings; it was approved on that basis. In 2015 Reserved Matters on the 2013 outline permission accepted 3 dwellings but with 3 cars each (9 vehicles): an increase of 50% on the 2013 expected traffic. Worse than not ideal. This 2015 application seeks to allow 4 dwellings with 3 cars each (12 vehicles). This is an increase of 33% on the Reserved Matters and a 100% increase on the original outline application where access was not ideal. From not ideal to worse than not ideal to even worse than worse than not ideal. Members will see the direction of travel in this application.
How is this incremental lowering of standards from something that started as not ideal a sign of Mid Devon's commitment to high quality design?
Are Members happy to allow a fourth dwelling that allows 100% more traffic to use the access road than was first accepted in the 2013 outline plan.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that as the Local Planning Authority it was necessary to decide why not to approve planning permission. Therefore not ideal was not necessarily not high quality design or unacceptable. The question has to be asked, is it bad enough to refuse and you have to justify refusal.
The Highway Authority had considered the access to the site, the length of the access, the width and whether vehicles would meet. The update provides further information on this.
In terms of highway issues we take advice from Devon County Council Highways Authority. The Highways officer had visited the site, we have had a response and he had discussed the issues with local residents. He had no objection to the proposal.
Mr Byrom continued stating that officers have told Members that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. But the context is developments that generate significant amounts of movement and the focus of the bullet is traffic flow and queues, not safety, which is our chief concern. An extra dwelling does, however increase by 33% from Reserved Matters, the likelihood of cars having to reverse into Paullett. The increase is 100% from 2013. Severe. Officers choose not to quote the more relevant previous bullet point that says plans and decisions should take accounts of whether.....safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. How do officers justify quoting a NPPF bullet point whose context is for a development that generates significant amounts of movement?
If officers contend that their quoted bullet point still applies, will they equally insist that Members should demonstrate that there is safe and suitable access....for all people, if they wish to approve the application?
Are Members satisfied that they would be fulfilling their duties under the Equalities Act if they allow at least a 33% increase in traffic along a narrow private drive without the required passing places and with a mere 55cm strip at each side as shown in the application plans?
The Head of Planning and Regeneration in response stated that the Highways Authority responses should be referred to. The Highways Authority is the statutory consultee. The NPPF should be taken in its entirety. If Highways had concerns regarding safety then they would have said so.
Mr Byrom stated that the Highway Authority insists that the visibility splays at the junction meet the Manual for Streets regulations. This is only true if the lowest standards are applied i.e. traffic travelling at 10 mph and in forward gear. The Highways advice fails to acknowledge that the junction is in a 30mph area and that vehicles will be reversing into the junction from the new access road and from three other private driveways. Visibility to the south east is impaired by shrubbery even when cut back from the foot way. In those circumstances the splays do not meet the requirements. Highways have commented that ...a share surface style route is also acceptable for disabled access from a highways perspective. But the plans do not propose a shared surface style route as it has narrow foot ways/verges, each 55cm in width. If highways are right to say that the design style for the access route is shared surface, will officers show how the applicants have met the requirements in Manual for Streets paragraph 7.2.12 that says consultation with the community and users, particularly with disability groups and access officers is essential when any shared surface scheme is developed?
Please would officers explain to Members what are they expected to do should they believe that Highways have made a mistake or inappropriate assumption in their judgements about visibility splays or the design of the access road?
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the DCC response and update should be considered. Members had the ability to refuse the application if they did not agree with the Highway Authority, good planning reasons for refusal and justification would be required.
Mr Preston (Agent for the Applicant) referring to Item 1 (Paullett) on the agenda stated that the site already had planning permission for 3 dwellings and Reserved Matters for this had already been granted. The current application sought to add one affordable dwelling to meet the local need. The first suggestion for refusal had been the impact on 9 Turnpike, officers view was that the impact was not unacceptable and could be mitigated with landscaping and fencing. Following this there had not been any further concerns for the residents at 9 Turnpike. With regard to the highway issues, 3 dwellings had already received planning permission, 1 additional dwelling could not be described as severe. With regard to the bin storage, 3 dwellings had been approved, would bins and boxes from one additional dwelling warrant refusal? With regard to drainage issues an onsite drainage strategy has been approved by the County Drainage Engineer. Are Members aware that if on site drainage is not acceptable access to the combined sewerage system is acceptable.
Mr Bond again referring to Item 11 stated that when considering the impact on neighbouring properties, Members, officers and the subsequent report of focuses solely on No 9 Turnpike, had ignored the greater impact on other properties, notably 13 Paullett. Overlooking and window to window distances are not the issue here. The issues are loss of privacy, loss of amenity, noise and fumes, and reduced security created by a driveway immediately adjacent to a back garden and within 10 m of a conservatory that is still not represented correctly on the plan. The Manual for Streets states the basic tenet of public fronts and private backs and that ideally back gardens should adjoin other back gardens or a secure communal space. When considering the question of the impact of plot 1 on the amenity of existing property, why was the impact on 13 Paullett not considered? Given the importance stressed by others of following guidance in Manual for Streets, why is it not being followed in this case?
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the impact of Plot 1 had been considered by officers. Window to window the distance was 26 metres. It was not felt that there was significant loss of privacy or amenity. The relationships between all of the properties had been considered and it was felt that this was not sufficient to refuse planning permission.
Mrs Bond again referring to Item 11 on the agenda stated that the officers report recognises that bin collection arrangements are to quote not ideal, do not meet Mid Devon Waste Storage Guidance and are not in accordance with Building Regulations 2010 Drainage and Waste disposal document H. Why are officers considering allowing a 33% increase in the number of refuse bins and recycling containers making a not ideal situation, even more not ideal? And where exactly on the plan would officers expect the refuse bins and recycling containers to be placed on collection days and how would this affect highway and pedestrian safety? As residents of the new properties will have to carry waste between 60 and 85 metres to the nearest safe collection point, how would Members justify approving this application in light of the Equalities Act?
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that refuse collection is not ideal, It was recognised that Development Guidance states that there should be a highway pickup point. Paullett is an adopted highway, the collection point would be on the pavement, but the edge of the private access could be used. This would be the same for 3 or 4 dwellings. Carrying waste to the collection point was not considered to breach the Equalities Act; the assisted collection bin scheme could be used if required.
Mr Fisher again referring to Item 11 stated that at the committee meeting on 16 December Councillor Radford stated and this issue is about going from 3 houses to 4. We aren't talking an extra area.....it's all within the development area. The above statement was not corrected by Planning Officers at the time. Would they please clarify to the committee and by reference to a site plan that the land area is increased from that approved by outline planning permission and that the extended land area falls entirely within Conservation land?
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the plan identified the Conservation Area; the Conservation Officer had no objections. The fact that the previous scheme did not include the Conservation Area was not considered to be able to sustain a refusal.
Mr Martin, referring to Item 11 on the agenda stated that the various plans presented at different stages of this application had shown inaccuracies and omissions. Conservation land had not been shown; neither has conservatories on adjacent properties, nor walls and landscaping details, all of which caused misleading interpretations of the actual situation. Why had officers not insisted on the correction of all inaccuracies and omissions so that Members could today be looking at an up to date and accurate plan?
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that we were giving you up to date information in the presentation with photots of the site to allow an assessment to be made. Window to window distances, loss of amenity or overlooking had been assessed and could not be considered to be able to be sustained as a reason for refusal.
Mr Dinnage referring to Item 11 stated that an affordable home had been identified on this site as Plot 1. Could Planning Officers explain how 1 affordable home was greater public benefit than the 3 affordable homes recently approved under reserved matters for this site which do not lead to the expansion of the development area onto conservation land.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that permission for the 3 houses did not include an affordable home but a financial contribution towards offsite affordable housing. The applica6tin for 4 dwellings included 1 of affordable dwelling on site.
Mr Dumble referring to Item 11 stated that the developer had agreed to implement in full the recommendations of the Ecology Report. This included provisions of a continuous bio diverse hedging around the entire boundary perimeter linked to that between houses. But to date a plan showing this continuous hedge had not been produced. The need for this was to conserve existing foraging and migration routes of small mammals, and notably hedgehogs who nest and breed in surrounding gardens. Would Planning Officers please show to Councillors on the site plan the proposed position of the continuous double hedging on the northern and western side boundary? Could they then state how a continuous bio diverse hedge as recommended in the ecology report can be planted between the bungalow on Plot 4 and the northern boundary without moving the position of the bungalow?
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that on the northern boundary it would be difficult to provide a hedge along the full boundary on Plot 4 and on Plot 2 because of the position of the back of the property to the boundary.
Mr Dumble continued by stating that the draft consultancy report on the SUDS drainage design for the Paullett site had been accepted without question by the Planning Officers. It was demonstrably in error in many respects when compared to current SUDS guidance. For example the depth to water table was not identified and the design on the soakaways was significantly undersized by using average rather than a worst case infiltration rate. Given increased rainfall and flood risk, this was of real concern. Can Planning Officers explain the process they use for critical review of expert reports? Are independent advisors ever consulted when technical issues fall beyond the professional expertise available within the council or when issues are highlighted by objectors? And if so, when was this last done? Will the drainage report be reassessed and corrected?
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that Devon County Council were the Lead local Flood Authority, the drainage scheme had been conditioned, Devon County Council would provide the expert advice.
Mr Dumble stated that we had learnt in the course of this application that technical advice and policy published on Mid Devon and Devon County Council websites is contradictory to and over-ridden by the guidance in the NPPF. This inconsistency, lack of explanation of these issues by officers in the course of this application and unfortunately in our experience, a sometimes patronising approach to objectors valid concerns, does this council no credit and wastes an overwhelming amount of everyone's time. My question refers to guidance in the NPPF and in particular the Ministerial Forward, Sections 66, 189 and 190. Could Planning Officers explain when the principles expressed in the Ministerial Forward to the NPPF i.e. for planning to be a collective enterprise which includes people and communities in planning issues will be taken seriously by this Council? What steps have they taken since 2012 when the NPPF was published to implement these policies? Can officers indicate what plans are in place to improve public information on their and DCC websites, to correct discrepancies in guidance and remove or update those documents which no longer have any validity or application?
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the Statement of Community Involvement outlines the consultation process with neighbours and local residents. Local residents had also had the opportunity to speak today. Information was placed on Public Access on the website, if this was out of date or particular documents are considered no longer relevant then please let us know.