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:
Cllr Grantham - Willand Parish Council referred to Item 10 on the agenda (Junction 27) and highlighting the Town and County Planning Act 1990 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act. The report sought to vary conditions 5, 6, 15, 23 etc of 13/009470MOUT and to consider legal advice that would be presented at this meeting. I agree with most of this report, as it just confirms the principles of Section 73 of the Town and Planning Act 1990 which I believe is in the process of being amended but is not yet law and that we must consider the application on the present law. The applicants have asked for a variation of conditions (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) which is part of the Act. It states in the Government guidelines (flexible options for planning permissions):
In my opinion MDDC have already put themselves in a precarious position of being accused of pre-determination.
The so called land application at Junction 27 (which we all know is the exact size and proportions that is needed by Eden Westwood for their development) the granting again in 2017 of planning permissions for the garage and services by MDDC whether it is implemented or not, knowing Eden Westwood is promoting this site, giving them priority on both sides. This could be seen by the inspector as giving Eden Westwood a district advantage acquiring all of the land allocation at Junction 27 and no other developer could get direct access to the site from the M5 motorway.
The application for variations should be dismissed, as in its present form, it does not comply with Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990.
Cllr Hugill - Halberton Parish Council referring to Item 9 on the agenda (Uffculme) stated that the Parish Council supported the decision to refuse the application for 30 dwellings on the Uffculme straight. Officers have been asked for reasons for refusal and Halberton Parish Council continue to ask you to refuse the application. Officers continue to talk about the land supply matter and disregard the contents of the Local Plan Review because it has not been tested. I say as a Parish Councillor and a resident that the Local Plan is valid and we expect you to follow it, we therefore ask that you continue to vote against the application.
Paula Mossman referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (White Cross, Cheriton Fitzpaine) representing the Shop Management Committee for the Community Shop asked if Councillors were aware that the community of Cheriton Fitzpaine stood to benefit from this retail space. Can we ask the Committee that 90 sqm of retail floor space relates to the Cheriton Fitzpaine community shop only as discussions with the developer, DCC and Planning Officers have also been along the lines of plans already submitted.
Jill Hordon again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List asked if Councillors are aware of the impact of refusal of the application on the residents of Cheriton Fitzpaine if there was not a site for the community shop which could be a hub for the whole village.?
Cllr R M Deed referring to Item 11 on the agenda (TPO - Greenslinch Lane) stated that he had been asked by the landowner to speak on his behalf as he lived in Silverton North which was in his Ward. The land was in Silverton Ward meaning that Cllr Mrs Roach would normally address you, but she had agreed with Cllr Deed that he would attend and speak. The owner of the land that the TPO is proposed on has always maintained good husbandry on his land but a couple of people adjacent have taken against him and applied for a TPO on a piece of track which the farmer has no intention of developing. The TPO would preserve the visual amenity of the area, the landowner has no intention of developing the area proposed by the TPO. Do Members believe that just because the person in the village does not like him that a vexatious TPO application on the land of any farmer should be approved? Please reject this application.
The Chairman apologised to Cllr Deed and to Cllr Mrs Roach, she stated that if she had known that Cllr Deed had been asked to speak on behalf of the Ward Member Cllr Mrs Roach regarding this application then her decision not to let Cllr Deed speak prior to the application being determined would have been different, she had not had this information when she made the decision.
Mr Gordon referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (White Cross, Cheriton Fitzpaine) stated that he lived opposite the site, the land was relatively flat with drainage ditches around the site as it is wet and can often be two thirds flooded and holds water from the rest of the village which goes via a culvert to bypass the village. I feel that 28 dwellings on the site will create flood issues for Cherry Meadow as it is lower than the application site. There are other locations in the village for a shop which could be made good rather than a big development outside the village. 28 dwellings on a boggy field will create problems.