To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Given the level of interest in the meeting it has been decided that the available space for public attendance/viewing will be split into two halves, allowing proponents of each side of the debate equal accommodation and space within the room.
Furthermore, in order to ensure that public interest in the meeting can be met, the Chairman has agreed to the waiving of the standard 30 minute limit on public questions. Public questions will be heard beyond the 30 minute agenda item providing that such questions are raising new points for the council’s response. The Chairman will reserve the right to close public question time if becomes clear that such questions are proving repetitious.
Minutes:
Mrs Webber referring to Item 4 on the agenda stated that – I am the owner of Jo Amor which is an independent shop on Bampton Street. I’d like to take this opportunity to speak and to raise concerns over the leisure and retail development at Junction 27. My main concern relates to the over 1071sq of designer outlet village. That is equivalent to approximately 80 of my shops, which I consider will have a negative impact on my business and Tiverton town centre as a whole. I have run my business in the town for over 20 years and I have worked really hard to create a shopping experience that is unique and adds to the draw of the town. I am proud and passionate about what we have achieved. Over the years we have gradually expanded from just woman’s wear into men’s wear, gifts and now a café. I feel that it really adds to the vibrancy and variety along Bampton Street. I also employ a number of local people who are part of the business success and keeping it local. In recent years all the businesses in the town have worked hard to ensure the town’s long term success. This has been helped by successfully winning the Portas bid and the more recent introduction of Electric Nights Street Food in the council owned Pannier Market. However, we constantly have to work really hard to compete with online sales and the continued draw of Exeter and Taunton. Local retailing is vulnerable to external influences which will alter where the shopper chooses to shop and spend their money. Once open the designer outlet village will inevitably draw visitors and local shoppers away from Tiverton, Crediton and Cullompton. This could potentially lead to more vacant units and really undermine the long term vision and success of our vital high streets and our independent shops. The designer outlet village will have a negative impact on my business and the Tiverton town centre. This allocation is too soon at a time when we are starting to work together to create a local destination that we are all proud of. Please don’t undermine all the hard work that the local businesses and the council have done to get Tiverton where it is today. Therefore I ask you, that you not include this development in the new Local Plan submission. Based on my concerns I ask are members completely satisfied that the proposed Junction 27 allocation will not have a detrimental impact on existing businesses in Crediton Tiverton and Cullompton?
Mr Disney again referring to Item 4 on the agenda stated - My question is about the perception of the requirement for extra housing if Junction 27 is allocated for employment use. Some 60% of the working age population of Mid Devon migrate out of the district to find employment and I would like to know what that actually relates to in numbers of employees and how many go through Junction 27 at the moment. I hope the planning officer can provide those figures. There appears to be a presumption that extra housing will be required if Junction 27 is brought forward for employment use, is that actually the case if the current migration is a figure that can be applied. To me there seems to be a real question as to why extra housing needs to be provided above what is already in the local plan. Is there really a need for extra housing if Junction 27 comes forward?
Mr Colin Passey - Chair of Sampford Peverell Parish Council and referring to Item 4 on the agenda stated that in April we were assured that consideration of Junction 27 in the plan would result in no further delay of the plan’s submission, we were told that it could be submitted in August. Now September and we are advised that should it be included there will be a further six months delay at best at putting forward the Local Plan. In the meantime we are aware that there are developers approaching local residents in Sampford Peverell and no doubt in other villages too, looking to buy land for speculative development. They are saying that they are doing so because there is no fit for purpose Local Plan in place. Are you happy to recommend that there is a further period during which local communities are at the mercy of developers for unplanned and unwelcome development and if so I’d be grateful what message you want to pass onto the residents of Sampford Peverell who, most of them, see no advantage to the development at Junction 27.
Cllr Wilson - speaking as a Member of Tiverton Town Council and referring to Item 4 on the agenda stated that I am concerned that if Junction 27 is included in the plan additional housing will have to be provided. Allocated sites were looked at when I was on the Council and were either deleted or put as reserves. Having looked at the papers online I notice that some sites are still on there, in particular Hay Park, Tidcombe Lane and Hartnoll Farm. Will they be looked at as a separate issue or as part of Junction 27? If you do include it will it be a separate issue or part of today’s business?
Mr Saunders, referring to Item 4 on the agenda stated that with regard to housing accommodation attached to this, in particular the Higher Town site for 60 houses. The Higher Town site is in an elevated position. It is suggested that 60 houses go on it, and at the moment there is one. This house has panoramic views and can be seen from the station, the canal and Wellington Monument so it is clear that any development is going to be seen and will be a blot on the landscape. Given those circumstances that the proposal is to change the use of land on a site that can hold more than 60 houses, have Members any idea how many houses might be built on the land and on the basis that it is so visible, landscaping will never hide this from view. It concerns me that we have a disingenuous view that only 60 houses will be provided. Clearly there will be many more, in an elevated position and they will sell due to the view. I suggest the site may have been selected due to the value of the properties and Members should be sure that it has not been selected for opportunistic impropriety at all.
The Chairman read a letter from Cullompton Town Council regarding the delays in the adoption of the Local Plan and the knock on effect to the Cullompton Neighbourhood Plan:
Cullompton started work on its Neighbourhood Plan in March 2014 and completed the first phase of the process and had a consultation draft ready by January 2016.
However, due to delays in the adoption of the Mid Devon Local Plan, it has not been possible to complete the final phase of the Neighbourhood Plan process so that the Plan can be adopted as planning policy. Due, in part to this delay, and anticipated further delays if it is decided to include the J27 proposals in the Plan, the preparation of the Plan will cost the Town Council far more than it had originally envisaged. The reason for this letter is a request that Mid Devon District Council considers making a contribution towards these additional costs.
There will be financial benefit to Mid Devon once the Plan is completed as the basic level of funding a local planning authority receives on completion of a Neighbourhood Plan is £30,000. The first payment of £5,000 is made following designation of the neighbourhood area. The second payment of £5,000 will be made when the final pre-examination version of the neighbourhood plan is publicised by the local planning authority prior to examination. The third payment of £20,000 will be made on successful completion of the neighbourhood planning examination.
The Neighbourhood Plan is looking at allocating extra land for housing. This would be more land than in the MDDC local plan. There would be extra land in the NW Extension and in East Cullompton. Once built these extra houses will provide extra revenue for MDDC and Cullompton. It would therefore help Cullompton if in the short term MDDC can provide finance to support the Neighbourhood Plan.
A concern of the Neighbourhood Plan is that the original consultation evidence is getting old and it is likely a planning Inspector would require more recent evidence. Therefore the Neighbourhood Plan expects to have to hold an additional public consultation and then update all the data. This is a costly process.
If MDDC vote to include Junction 27 in the Local Plan, and Junction 27 development progresses then MDDC can expect to obtain several millions in business rates, even though the MDDC local plan is delayed. Therefore providing some extra funding to Cullompton Town Council to help the Neighbourhood Plan to be completed would be helpful.
The Council would be grateful if this matter could be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 15 September 2016 and look forward to receiving a response.
The Chairman also read an email from Mrs Gillian Evans –
I was hoping to be at Cabinet today to raise questions I have regarding allocation of land south of the A38 at J27.
Should Cabinet approve the allocation of land at J27 I trust that Members will take cognisance of the recommendations that your own officers give in relation to timescales and the delays envisaged in having to prepare a new document, go out to consultation and collate the representations made during that process. What will be plan ‘b’ should there be any slippage in the timescales.
Is this a land allocation or a pre determination of a future planning application. The wording of the proposed policy in respect of "protecting" the type of development at J27 is a straight lift from Eden/Westwood's own exhibition material. If Eden/Westwood fail to bring the project forward do we tie other developers to having to comply with the Policy? Why would another developer wish to take on a project that has an element of unviability in it?
The Chairman indicated that answers to questions would be dealt with when the item was discussed.