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:
Mike Shaw, referring to Item 1 (Crosses Farm) on the agenda stated:
please can the Committee and Officers advise on the progress of the Mid Devon Local Development Plan. I understand it was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on the 31st March and the Inspector will shortly be reporting on his findings and approval that it is sound. Please can you confirm that it includes a clear 5-year housing land supply for Mid-Devon - thus making any speculative applications in communities which have been specifically excluded in the emerging LDP unnecessary and unwarranted?
Mike Scott (CPRE), referring to Item 1 (Crosses Farm) on the agenda stated that the site proposed in this application is, and always has been, open countryside, and never within any settlement boundary. With regards to the NPPF and local COR policies, please can the Committee advise why any permission would be granted for building on open countryside in an area identified as unsustainable, when sufficient 5 year land-supply within Mid Devon has been identified through a thorough consultation process in producing the LDP?
Jenny Mayne, referring to Item 1 (Crosses Farm) on the agenda stated that
for applications proposing 10 dwellings or under, formal consultation of the surrounding community is not a requirement. Of the 55 letters of support for this application, only five came from within the Uplowman Parish. In contrast, of the 43 objections, 33 came from residents within the Uplowman Parish who would be directly affected by the proposal, and the exact community which should have been consulted. This is also in line with Secretary of States clear direction for community-led development in his recent letter regarding this application. Please can you advise how the Committee takes the context and sources of all public submissions into consideration?
Paul Lovell referring to Item 1 (Crosses Farm) on the agenda stated that last year, the planning inspector ruled on a separate application for a single dwelling within Uplowman. He clearly stated that Uplowman is a rural settlement, and based on the objective criteria defined in the NPPF, was unsustainable. He therefore upheld the refusal of permission. These objective criteria for sustainability were established to prevent any lobbying or misrepresentation by applicants confusing the definition of what is a sustainable community. Can the Committee confirm that they respect and abide by the legal definition of sustainability in the NPPF and the recent ruling by the Planning Inspectorate with regards to the status of Uplowman?
Tim Kenyon referring to Item 1 (Crosses Farm) on the agenda stated that Uplowman has no public transport or footpaths and the proposal is heavily reliant on the use of private cars. These factors combine to produce an application which does not meet sustainability criteria as it would significantly increase pollution and road traffic locally. Does the committee agree that this application is therefore at odds with the Mid Devon Core Strategy to coordinate development to reduce the use of the car, the NPPF on environmental impact, and the new guidance issued to Local Authorities recently on reducing pollution locally?
Wayne Elliott, referring to Item 1 (Crosses Farm) on the agenda stated that my question is about road safety, particularly at the entrance to the proposed development. The entrance is on a dangerous, blind bend where there are near-misses between vehicles and pedestrians on a daily basis. We do not understand why the Highways’ report fails to mention this aspect and we were not given the opportunity to discuss it with them. The proposed development means there will be more vehicles feeding directly into this location. Additionally, the application proposes that the rubbish and recycling bins will be emptied on this bend - the worst possible location for a lorry to be parked. So aside from the detrimental visual impact of having all these bins in one place, the bend will become even more hazardous. What are the committee members’ views on this please?
Ivor Maynereferring to Item 1 (Crosses Farm) on the agenda stated that the NPPF makes reference to the need to enhance the visual aspect of local communities. The proposed site in Uplowman is compromised in many ways. It requires a detour of traffic to and from the proposed 8 dwellings through a one-way system. To enforce this, such measures as having crocodile teeth obstructions, lighting and warning signs at the entrance and exit are needed. These are not features that add to the appearance of a small Devon village. Can I ask that the committee give their views of the impact of the development on the street scene please?
Wayne Elliott (on behalf of Chris Gellion), referring to Item 1 (Crosses Farm) on the agenda stated that given the recent involvement and decisions of the Planning Inspector on applications to develop this area, namely the long standing dispute over the agricultural building which resulted in a refusal and his rejection of the application to build a single dwelling on the adjacent site of Little Chase, under what circumstances would the Planning Committee go against the Planning Official’s recommendation in this case?
Cllr Grantham speaking on behalf of Willand Parish Council referring to Item 4 on the Plans List - Junction 27 stated that from your notes, outline planning for this site was granted in 1995. Now in 2017, some 22 years later, we are told by AXA, Friends Life, and Eden Westwood, that they want these conditions varying, because of their commercial interest in this site, i.e. to do as least work as possible on this application site to fulfil obligations. It seems to me, once again, at every opportunity, the planning department are accommodating this developer.
Why is it necessary to take into account the commercial interest of this developer to remove and amend conditions? This appears to be some reliance on legislation, which is pending and not yet law.
Why do the planning department again give the developer another 2 years to comply? After 22 years, I think they have had enough time.
Condition 13, basically this covers the protection of trees and hedgerows by erecting fencing to protect the roots. This condition is now not being contested by the developer, so one would assume fencing will be erected before the work commences. If this is not being done why?
Because this condition appears later in the text, it is confusing and needs clarifying. I hope the Members will consider these genuine comments, when they discuss this application.
Carol Pledge referring to item 3 on the plans list (Woodford Farm Witheridge) stated that she wished to ask if Members were awarethat the ecology report was inaccurate, there were 3 lots of birds nesting on the site and she highlighted the different varieties of wildlife birds, mice and badgers in the vicinity of the application site. She also highlighted the noise impact of the proposal on the ground breeding species in the area and asked that further consideration be given to these issues when determining the application.