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:
Mr Salter referring to the Eastern Urban Extension items stated that:
The many recommended amendments and additions to existing wording and conditions outlined in the Head of Planning and Regeneration’s report in Item 11 for Application 14/00881/MOUT make shocking very depressing reading, as, if sanctioned, they would herald a vast deterioration in infrastructure provision for the Eastern Urban Extension, the likely result being a steady, but eventually massive, increase in traffic congestion, pollution and noise affecting many people and stakeholders. Although predicable these would also represent very major setbacks for the Adopted Masterplan.
While we have some sympathy with Planning Officers, who have little to show for their efforts, we are still surprised that the negotiations with an obviously intransigent Chettiscombe Trust were apparently so one-sided, this report representing ‘the best that can be achieved’ and requiring ‘difficult decisions to be considered in several areas’. We are also very concerned about the shortfall in funding for the A361 junction, being surprised that greater assurances were not sought for the availability of Local Enterprise Partnership funding of £7.5 million.
We urge that ‘the pressing need to resolve outstanding issues’ and ‘the need for speedy resolution’ will not lead to hasty decisions, resulting in unsustainable solutions which will be regretted for many years to come. A key statement in the Masterplan reads ‘The provision of a new junction onto the A361 is critical to the success of the scheme, to prevent unacceptable increases in traffic along Blundell’s Road’. The latter is not going to happen!
We have, until now, supported the introduction of a carefully phased Eastern Urban Extension, but we feel that the price to be paid for the development and the consequent achievement of five-year housing targets will become too high because the changes requested in this report are so fundamental, far-reaching and damaging that they would result in unacceptable outcomes. We urge that they should be refused, or heavily amended, and that decisions should be delayed while all possible alternative scenarios and funding solutions are urgently re-examined. Is there time to discuss all these major issues and others adequately at one meeting?
The choices are stark ones. Last August this committee unanimously rejected the Chettiscombe Trust’s previous application to change the terms and conditions of its pending s106 agreement. Do they have the courage of their convictions to do so again?
1. The Masterplan
The Adopted Masterplan SPD outlines the need for the first phase of the junction and linking road to be completed prior to the occupation of any development. ‘As the development progresses, the occupation of no more than 200 dwellings (or 4,000sqm of employment) is permitted until completion of Phase 1 traffic calming and improvements to the roundabouts at Heathcoat Way and Lowman Way are completed. Prior to the occupation of no more than 600 dwellings or 10,000 sqm of employment land the completion of the full grade separated junction and Phase 2 of the traffic calming works are required’. The Head of Planning and Regeneration’s report states that ‘these masterplan requirements are now found to be undeliverable and unless amended, no development at Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension will be able to take place, with the exception of up to 330 dwellings towards the north east of the site (Waddeton Park land)’.
Question 1
If the present proposals are accepted there will have already been two very major changes to the adopted Masterplan before any building has occurred, and it will become a deeply flawed document. It is therefore increasingly less valid, bearing little relation to reality. Has the time come for a revised, updated, Masterplan for Area A, and a consequent revision of the Local Plan Proposed Submission Document 2013 - 2033?
At this point he asked 2 other questions:
On behalf of Mr Welchman
I fully endorse and support the objections and questions you have raised and demand a completely new public consultation on this revised scheme and secondly with regard to one specific detail will the area south of Manley Lane, adjacent to the Railway Walk be kept as green infrastructure?
From a Member of the Civic Society
Is not the Councils primary responsibility to its residents and council tax payers, not to developers?
Mr Lutley referring to the Eastern Urban Extension items stated that:
Agenda items 10 and 11
It is my understanding that MDDC will be taking out loans on behalf of the developer in order that some of the infrastructure is built. Surely the council should be devoting all of its financial resources to public services. As a council tax payer, I object to this course of action. Why are the developers not taking out the loans themselves?
Agenda item 11
Under this amendment it seems that construction of houses may start before the A361 southern junction is in place. Consequently, all of the construction traffic will either have to come through Halberton or use Blundell’s Road, both of which are wholly unsuitable for this kind of vehicle. Has anyone considered the impact of the noise and dirt on local residents? What about the increased risk of accidents with Blundell’s School pupils and staff who cross the road in several places many times a day? I would ask the council not to allow this to take place.
Surely the construction of the acoustic bund behind some of the properties in Uplowman Road also needs to be completed before any building work gets under way? The councillors have a duty to ensure this protection is afforded to residents.
Construction of the northern side A361 junction appears to be up in the air. I am concerned that, by not committing to a timescale, it will not get built for years, by which time rising costs might mean it never gets built.
Agenda items 10, 11 and 12
I do not understand why both developers keep trying to chip away at S106. Presumably planning applications take months or years to put together, so either the developers didn’t do their sums properly or they are trying to wriggle out of the commitments they have made in order to make more profit. I would suggest it is time for strong governance and I call upon the councillors to do what is best for local people by not approving these amendments.
The Chairman read a representation from Mr and Mrs Benge again referring to the Eastern Urban Extension items
I recently, whilst revisiting the EUE documents, noted that the
traffic figures used as a baseline for future predictions of flow
on Blundells Road were published in 2012 and as such are now considerably out of date.
Surely traffic flow requires reassessment before any development commences?
The quality of air has deteriorated substantially in Tiverton over the past five years with the substantially increased traffic flows along Western/ Heathcoat Way, particularly from large commercial vehicles and also the increased usage of wood/multifuel burners as a supplementary/or sole use of heating in homes. This is very evident in central areas of Tiverton with the valley topography and nightly temperature inversion in cold and clear weather trapping polluted air throughout Tiverton particularly the lower areas in the town. This will be further exacerbated by construction and new residential traffic movements if the complete A361 junction is not created before development of the EUE.
Has air quality been monitored at all since the original assessment before the compilation of the Masterplan?
A left off and on slip from the A361, apart from
causing the congestion at Horsdon
roundabout would also create chaos on the link road at morning rush
hour if traffic used the slip road to access the link road in a
westerly direction and then did a U turn over the existing bridge
at Gornhay.
The town will have the same problem as Cullompton which has had the carrot of a bypass dangled in front of the planners to accommodate the building of yet another estate over the last 20 years and now has horrendous congestion and pollution through its main streets in a morning, and still no bypass.
More relevant statistics are required? Quality of life in Tiverton is already reduced due to inadequate control of traffic flows.
I believe that these up to date statistics would totally validate the need for a complete junction before a substantial number of houses are built.
Mr Cook referring to the items on the Eastern Urban Extension stated:
I wish to refer to your current agenda items 10, 11 and 12.
Dr Bell and myself have prepared a number of comments and questions relating to the officers report that we ask you to consider in view of the serious implications of the issues raised in the reports.
There is a clear message within these three agenda items that the changes to agreements requested today and that are predicted soon by agenda 10 are aimed at securing delivering only of the councils own policy objectives and making the path to profits by developers easier. The hard won Masterplan was supposed to provide residents and the environment with protection from any adverse effects of this massive development. Our planners and the developers seem to be trying to undermine this protection.
Please rectify this for us today.
Item 10 A361 Road Junction referring to paragraph 2.0 and also agenda item 11 paragraph 1. The table of sources of finance for the southern left in left out junction indicate they are clearly not secure and both DCC and MDDC are effectively taking on loans for the developers. Councils are supposed to be hard pressed to make budgets stretch to cover the public services for which they are responsible. It cannot be right to take on a loan for a housing developer.
Is this the right thing to do? Why are the developers not taking on the responsibility? Residents were told by DCC Highways in 2014 that the cost of the full junction was estimated to be about £13m. This report suggests that it is now around £18m.
There is no clear plan and timing for the actual delivery of the north side of the junction and delays in delivery of the full junction are very likely to increase costs, where would this money come from?
The conditions applied to the original planning applications by Waddeton Park and Chettiscombe Trust require that they fund the resurfacing of the A361 on both carriageways for 200m in both directions. Why should Devon taxpayers now fund half of this and why should residents have to wait for the full delivery of this promise? Why would doing the north side result in abortive works?
Mr Corden again referring to the Eastern Urban Extension items stated: I was Chairman of Halberton Parish Council Planning for 8 years but I decided not to stand again because Halberton Parish Council kept writing about this and various planning applications and found little or no attention was ever paid to all the work and all the checking they did, so I am here now representing Halberton residents who have asked me to come along. We fail to understand what is now happening, like so many planning applications it seems that it keeps getting moved. A development of 600 houses, probably to the value of £200 - £250 million to the developers, they are building for profit but they keep saying what they can’t afford things. Whenever the A361 is closed or partially closed, Halberton is gridlocked, it will be totally gridlocked with all the traffic that is needed for the development and when it has been built along with the industrial land which will have to come through Blundell’s Road or Halberton. If Horsdon is gridlocked they will come through Halberton and will affect Sampford Peverell and Willand. Have you got the nerve to say to the developers cough up, it is not up to the Council or the rate payers? This development at 600 houses is twice the size of Halberton which has 300 houses so this is building another complete village and we ask please have the nerve to say no. And take in mind the anaerobic digester that also has to be fed and please protect Halberton and the villages to the east of Tiverton.
The Chairman then asked Mr Cook to continue with his questions:
Paragraph 3 the bund with acoustic fencing and the planted zone were agreed to afford some protection to local residents from the considerable pollution expected from the south side junction construction works and subsequent use of the junction roads by future domestic and commercial traffic.
If the bund is to be constructed at the start of works as agreed and work starts in September 2017 then planting can be carried out in the early part of 2018 planting season and not delayed as implied. As a timely, phased delivery of the junction is logical any phasing of planting on the south side is unnecessary and could easily be in place prior to use as the original conditions require. Will you confirm and support this important complete protection for residents please?
Agenda item 11 Chettiscombe Trust Application paragraph 1 iii) refers to financial contribution for offsite provision of travellers’ pitches. If the concern over mortgage lenders is sufficient to grant this amendment then the same should apply to the Waddeton Park development where 70 market houses are to be built on the north side of Uplowman Road. It would make sense to provide a developer funded single site in a location suitable for all the required 5 or 6 pitches for both developments. What is the view of Planning Committee Members please?
Paragraphs 1 iv), 2 and 3 vii) delegated authority is sought in each of these three paragraphs. The TEUE is the largest development ever seen in Tiverton. Planning Committee Members represent the people of Mid Devon and they and local Ward Councillors should be allowed to read, comment and decide on amendments requested to conditions that are already approved by this Committee and the S106 agreements associated with the planning applications. Will you please reject this amendment and maintain your role for residents?
A361 northern side junction it is essential that this part of the junction is delivered quickly and not delayed unduly. Without the full junction all Barnstaple M5 traffic requiring access to the EUE areas or EUE to M5 traffic will use Gornhay junction and Blundell’s Road. The timely delivery of the northern side must be settled quickly or Blundell’s Road south side development should be put on hold until the full junction is in place. Will the Committee please see clarification on this matter?
No mention is made in the officer’s report to any recommendation of acceptance or otherwise of the requests made by Waddeton Park in their letter of 1 March for several changes to wording within S106 agreement clauses. The only requested change covered in the report is that referring to an increase from 50% to 75% occupation of market housing. Is the Planning Committee to be asked for approval for the outstanding requested changes which include the use of the phrase in perpetuity in relation to the provision of land for a traveller site?
The Chairman asked Mr Salter to continue with his questions:
2. Air Quality
We have posed questions on this issue at several previous Planning Meetings, but as members of the committee, many of whom have expressed concern, will be aware, air pollution, particularly from diesel engines, has again been much in the news recently, including the frequently quoted report by the Royal College of Physicians that air pollution is responsible for up to 40000 deaths annually, at least 25000 of them from vehicle emissions. There has recently been an emphasis on the health problems created by polluted air around schools near main roads in both cities and smaller towns and Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has remarked that: ‘It is an outrage that a large number of schools, and other educational institutions are in areas breaching legal air pollution limits’, calling for a ban on cars using roads near schools. Relevantly, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellencehas advocated the introduction of ‘no idling zones’ near schools, and consideration of the impact on air quality of speed humps and other calming measures.
The problem, potentially worst at the western end of Blundell’s Road, would also affect housing. John Middleton, Chairman of the Faculty of Public Health has said ‘The thing about air pollution is that it affects everybody. It’s affecting children, and unborn children, and people who don’t have a say in where they live or whether their streets are polluted’.
Cornwall Council has recently discussed plans which could include compulsory purchases of properties in areas, such as St Austell, with "particularly poor air quality", relocating the occupants elsewhere to protect them from air pollution. Yet Mid Devon District Council is advocating the creation of a new air pollution hub next to a school and residential area!
The Mid Devon Draft Local Plan Policy TIV 16 (Blundell’s School – 200 houses) 3.60d states that ‘the western end of Blundell’s Road has air quality issues which have been within about 15% of exceeding the relevant guidelines. Additional road traffic from this site has the potential to bring this permanently over the relevant limits if access is obtained from Blundell’s Road. Accordingly, access to the site is proposed to be direct from Heathcoat Way via a new junction’.
Question 2
If, as stated for TIV 16 in the draft local plan, access to the additional 200 houses from Blundell’s Road would lead to excessive generation of air pollution, the total for Blundell’s Road thereby being likely to exceed relevant guidelines, how could it possibly be acceptable to jeopardize people’s health by adding in all the traffic, created by the occupants of 1030 houses, which will move eastwards along Blundell’s Road, as well as a large proportion of that moving westwards, and is it not irresponsible to even consider it?
3. Blundell’s School and the western end of Blundell’s Road
As a result of likely congestion, air pollution, road safety and noise issues Blundell’s and the western end of Blundell’s Road would be the major losers if the proposed changes were to be adopted.(To quote from the Planning Committee Agenda for July 6th 2016 ‘the greatest impact resulting from the proposed change will be on the amenity of Blundell’s School, pedestrians crossing the road and the general amenity of Blundell’s Road’) In this amended set of proposals we are faced with a situation which would be infinitely worse than that in the Adopted Masterplan: instead of the construction of up to 600 houses before the full grade junction on the A361 is completed we would now have a situation whereby up to 1030 houses will be completed and occupied after only half a junction is built!
Question 3
a. Have Devon Highways approved the proposed enormous increases in traffic flows along Blundell’s Road and have detailed trip generation figures been prepared to model the likely westward and eastward traffic flows through Blundell’s School and the western end of Blundell’s Road, as well as the likely increased flows through Halberton? These important, and probably unsustainable, figures should surely be made available and analysed before any major decisions are taken
b. Have Blundell’s School and local residents been given the opportunity and adequate time to respond in detail to the proposed changes and impacts on them?
c. Does the Planning Officer concede that the new situation is so fundamentally changed that a new full consultation with local residents is urgently required?
d. Has the increased traffic resulting from proposed changes to the A361 junction phasing been subject to an updated Road Safety Audit?
e. Would the Committee be prepared to require a renegotiation of the figure of 1030 houses above to a maximum of 600 before the second stage of the junction is completed? This would be far more acceptable, would give certainty in negotiation with some of the ‘multiple applicants’, and provide a real incentive for acquisition of funding for the second stage of the A 361 junction.
The Chairman indicated that answers to the questions would be dealt with later in the meeting.