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 K Grantham, referring to item 7 on the agenda and in particular the report that started on page 15 of the documents, said the recommendation is that ‘The report be noted’. Will Members please consider if we are not in a situation where that report and what it represents should be the subject of considerable scrutiny and further questions? Has the report addressed the real issues and why we are in this position?
Is there anything missing from the report which is not in the public domain? It goes from paragraph 4.2.2 to 4.4. It then goes to a heading of 4.3 and then we have 4.5.1. The report has an appendix 1 on pages 23 to 25 of your bundle. Is that list of applications complete? I know of another application 17/01179/MFUL for 29 houses in Willand, which if added to the other two in appendix 1 and all are approved will increase the size of Willand by 21% with little or no improvement to infrastructure. The developers are ‘buying’ public green open space on existing sites which a MDDC report shows that Willand has a 64% shortage of under National Guidelines. Are any other sites missing?
Under the heading Legal Implications you are advised about the 5 year land supply. When the submission of the Local Plan Review was first delayed Willand Parish Council, at an open meeting of the Council, questioned Councillor Chesterton, the portfolio holder for Planning, if this delay would have any implications on the likely applications which were not planned for? He assured us that officers were confident that the five year land supply was sound and so he was able to say that it would not be in jeopardy. The Local Plan Review is again being delayed putting more areas of the District at risk of speculative applications. Why were we misled? Who got it so wrong? Who has been held to account?
Mr B Warren, also referring to item 7 on the agenda, and in particular some elements of the report presented said the report sets out risk assessmentunder paragraph 6 and then sets out some options under paragraph 7 mitigating measures. Is there a hidden policy to try and let these speculative applications go through to try and ‘build their way out of trouble’? Are certain communities being ‘sacrificed’ rather than show that major developments such as the 259 houses for Willand are likely to cause harm thereby negating the assumption under paragraph 14 of the NPPF?
I ask this question as last Tuesday I attended an informal appeal hearing against the refusal of the 259 houses in Willand. Most of the reasons for refusal were provided by Devon County Council on traffic matters. The appellants were represented by a barrister, planning consultant and traffic management consultant with two support staff. They had also submitted a 359 page statement of their case. In contrast MDDC were represented by a part time Area Team Leader Planning Officer supported by a DCC Highways Officer. Councillor Evans was present as a speaker, as was myself to represent the parish. The Planning Officer advised Councillor Evans and myself that she was limited as to what she could say. MDDC had not submitted a statement of case, a fact commented on adversely by the appellant’s barrister. DCC had submitted a statement on the traffic reasons for objection. All MDDC had submitted was a copy of the Officers original report to accompany the original decision prepared months before. A lot of this was a detailed response from Willand Parish Council. The MDDC report had been prepared by another officer and made no comment on update information and argument provided by the appellants. MDDC made little or no effort to refute anything said by the appellants nor was there any meaningful attempt made to show what harm this could cause the village. Councillor Evans and myself did our best to redress this but doubt it will carry much weight with the Inspector in the light of the lack of commitment by MDDC Officers. One would have thought that such a major unplanned application would have warranted the attendance of the Head of Planning and the responsible Cabinet Member. Why were they not there?
Mrs Brooks Hocking, representing Crediton Town Council, referring to item 5 on the agenda said having been involved with MDDC officers over the last few years in discussions about the future of the building and having achieved what we thought was a fair outcome that would benefit Crediton residents, the decision from Cabinet not to go ahead but to operate on purely commercial principles was a bit of a shock.
We understand why the Council might want to do this, but before you do, I just want to ask if you are aware of the results this will mean for Crediton. Currently the Crediton Council Offices accommodate on a permanent basis, Crediton Town Council; Community Transport and Citizens Advice
In addition, regular users are:
• Churches Housing Action Team
• In Sight Devon
• Crediton Hamlets Parish Council
• Stanbury Court Residents
• DCC Highways Surgeries
• DCC Children’s Services
• DCC Independent Review Unit
• Crediton International Social Cultural Organisation (language school)
There is a real social benefit to the clustering of services. Even if the providers I have just listed find other venues, the social hub element will be lost if the building passes out of public ownership. Do you think this is a good thing for community services?
On the open market, just the purchase of the building would result in a 25% increase in the Town’s precept in order to complete over 5 years as originally envisaged. Would the District Council be supportive of such a council tax increase for Crediton residents to purchase the building? Do you think this would be a fair way of us securing the building for community use?
We have a 5 year Strategic Plan, which could become severely compromised when competing with the purchase of the building. Is the District supportive of its town councils developing and implementing strategic plans?
Our Neighbourhood Plan consultation shows the Council office building is one of the most appreciated in the town for its local heritage and the services it provides. If the Cabinet decision is applied, we will have six months under the Community Right to Bid to consult with Crediton residents and to look at funding options. This is a very short time in which to try to secure such an important asset. Is this fair treatment of Crediton?
Councillor Peter Heal, at our September Town Council meeting told us that he would be ‘very interested to hear our views on joint strategic planning, or wider community engagement processes. A new method of community engagement is something that the council is currently looking into.’ He said he ‘would welcome our views on the best way to approach this’ and he would ‘feed these back to the council as appropriate.’
I can shorten the feedback route by telling you that joint strategic planning is what we have been trying to achieve through negotiations so Crediton Town Council can take on more services that MDDC can no longer afford, and provide a community focus for local government. I can assure you that Crediton Town Council is completely open to joint planning.
Our 5 year strategy is to improve and develop the services and facilities for Crediton residents that they have told us they want. Is that a strategy that MDDC would want to support?
The lack of parity with Tiverton Town Council purchasing their Town Hall has already been recognised and so I will make no further comment on this.