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 Herniman referring to Item 11 on the agenda (Howden Court) asked whether the Committee were aware that the siting of the footpath in a shady, narrow, unlit area to the rear of our house does not meet the nationwide police standards set out in their officially approved policy security initiative document called “Secured by Design”? In commenting on the design during a recent site visit, the local Crime Prevention Design Officer from Devon & Cornwall Police Constabulary said he could find no record of initial consultation with them on the original planning application - and if the application was before them now for comment the police force would have strong reservations.
Mrs Herniman referring to Item 11 on the agenda (Howden Court) asked whether the committee is aware that the design of the footpath being squeezed between our back door and the hedge line, is not fit for purpose? There are over forty steep steps up the bank to the new estate meaning anyone with limited mobility or carrying shopping will struggle to use it. On plan it is difficult to imagine the gradient but the photographs you have in front of you give an indication of what is involved. It is a well-known fact that pedestrians only use a footpath if it’s taking them where they want to go! The problem here is that it is difficult to see why the footpath was intended and
who it is there to serve, given its topography and location and the fact that, according to the Developer, it can only be used by residents of Phase 2 of Aubyn’s Wood Rise.
Jonathan Ison again referring to Item 11 on the agenda (Howden Court) made the following statement stated that the requirement for a path had been in place ever since the land was allocated for development in the Local Plan about 10 years ago. This requirement is consistent with national planning policy which seeks to achieve integrated and inclusive communities. The requirement was carried through for the planning consent despite active efforts by the developer and the land owner to remove it. I attended the Council debates at the time and saw the extent to which the Planning Committee insisted that the path should be a condition of the granting of the planning permission. This was backed up by a binding legal agreement signed and witnessed in October 2012 whereby the land owner, the developer and the Council agreed that the path would be in place before the first house at St Aubyn’s Rise was occupied. When, in November 2014, the first house was being prepared for occupation, I asked the planning office why the path had not been built? I think it fair to say that despite repeating my question many times by email and by telephone, I have not had a proper answer. I’ve seen the concerns expressed by the occupants of the new houses regarding safety and security but I cannot see why this should defeat national planning policy.
The Howden Court development is not a gated community, the access road is not a private road but will be adopted and the estate must therefore be subject to the policies that govern such developments. With regard to the design, layout and appearance of the path, this would be in the hands of the developer, the landowner and the Council who have agreed to build it to adoptable standard. It should therefore not be inherently unsafe. The concerns regarding maintenance and upkeep are more of a problem. The requirement for a path has been in the Local Plan for ten years and has been required in both Section 106 Agreements for both phases of the Howden Court development and the building of the path to adoptable standard was also required by the County Highways authority. It was therefore a surprise to discover that apparently the path will not be adopted. This raises the question of responsibility for the future maintenance and upkeep. It seems to have been assumed by the new residents of St Aubyn’s Wood Rise that it will be their responsibility. I wonder if they know that it was also a condition of the building of the St Aubyn’s Wood phase down below? On the other hand I don’t suppose any of the houses across the development have been sold with conditions regarding the maintenance of the path. I have asked the planning office why it is not proposed that the path should be adopted but so far I have not had an answer.
With regard to the signatories of the Section 106 Agreements, I understand that the developers have now sold part of the land on which the footpath was to have been built and the landowner has made a submission opposing the path without acknowledging that he is subject to a legal agreement to build it. This looks like a cynical disregard for the planning procedures from which both have benefited. In summary this seems a very ill handled business. If the path is to go ahead, as I think it should, the uncertainties regarding future maintenance must be resolved. The best result would be for the authorities to adopt it as was assumed from the start.
Mr Derritt referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Ingleton Farm) stated that he lived in Ashill and the traffic flow through the village had increased over the last 15 years, there were more and more home deliveries taking place and there was a very successful pub in the village. Sat Nav also leads lorries in the wrong direction and it is impossible for them to reverse. What plans did the Highway Authority have to widen the roads in the areas so that access was easier? The proposal would increase the traffic into Ashill, the visitors would need to go to Uffculme for food and the traffic issues in that village were awful with lorries and buses in the Square.
Mrs Killick again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Ingleton Farm) stated that the development was adjacent to her property and it would affect her with regard to noise, overlooking and loss of light, some of her concerns had been helped by the proposed amendment to Condition 9 and she referred to conversations she had had previously with planning officers. She asked whether the hedge would be moved back as agreed with the Planning Officer?
Mrs Taylor referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Ingleton Farm) stated that the report had been written by Tourism and Economic Development Officers and rather than Planning Officers, there were no shops in Ashill only a popular pub, the report failed to address the traffic issues, the agricultural vehicles, the pub and the school run. No consideration had been given to the noise nuisance and the impact on the neighbours.
Mr Powell referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Ingleton Farm) stated that he was concerned about the increase in traffic in the area, he felt the site was small and that children playing would overspill into the lanes.
Miss Coffin referring to Item 5 on the agenda (Enforcement) asked the following questions:
1. Has the Council considered contacting notifying Cruwys Farms Estate in regard to this breach – surely it is a landlord who has the quickest and most direct recourse against an erring tenant or sub tenant? I find it hard to believe that such a long established farming estate such as Cruwys Estate would condone or allow such behaviour and potential detriment to local residents and the environment as identified by your officers.
2. I refer to page 3 paragraph 9 and 10 under material considerations of your officers report which comments and seems to be implying that the tenant has an interest in other local more suitable sites for this lagoon. …………………………………………. She continued by addressing individuals and the concerns of the Environment Agency.
3. The fact that your officer reports that the tenant’s agent ……..has stated that the proposed purpose of the lagoon is to store liquid digestate from any of the 11 or so AD’s operating by them across the South West, why aren’t the Council asking the obvious question why does no one want this non-pasteurised digestate ………. Have….. sufficient secure tenure on sustainable and safe land access to dispose of the non-pasteurised liquid and solid digestate from all their AD’s in accordance with all best practice and NVZ closed period. If the answer is yes, how has this been verified and but which Agency MDDC, the Environment Agency or DEFRA
Mr Bright referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Ingleton Farm) voiced concern regarding traffic issues in the area and that the development was of no benefit to Ashill and he didn’t want it to go ahead.