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 Barry Warren, Chairman of Willand Parish Council, asked a series of questions in relation to item 7 on the agenda – outline for the erection of 30 dwellings on the Uffculme Straight.
More than two years ago when it was apparent that the submission of the Local plan Review 2013 – 2033 was to be delayed Willand Parish Council questioned the potential effects of such a delay and particular emphasis was placed on the 5 year land supply. Councillor Chesterton assured us that officers were confident that there was a sufficient land supply and in any case there were some contingency sites available to increase the supply if needed. How did that information get to be so wrong?
An Inspector found that there was not a deliverable 5 year land supply in Mid Devon when considering an appeal for one site next to the current applied for site. Could the Inspector have taken a different view if the original application were for the full 90 houses – it is the same field and he did condition the development to a maximum of 60 houses? We now have a number of applications in the immediate area where developers are relying on this finding and officers appear to be recommending to committee that they should approve the application in most cases because a five year land supply cannot be delivered. Could this deficit be caused by developers not building sufficiently quickly on the sites they have already – thus causing a shortfall? Could it be that houses are being built slowly to maintain demand and keep prices inflated?
The Copplestone appeal finding showed that applications can be defended on appeal and each set of circumstances are different.
Under current policy COR18 this site is in the open countryside. Under the emerging plan policy S14 it is still open countryside and subject to limitations on development. The emerging plan has been registered; an Inspector has been appointed and has set dates for preliminary hearings. NPFF allows a loophole in paragraph 14 if it is found that a development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date. MDDC have a continuation of policy between the two plans. It does offer some protection if adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. What are the benefits of approving this application – more houses, new homes bonus – some affordable homes – profit for the landowner and developer?
Is it not reasonable to look at the adverse cumulative impact on the wider area rather than restrict them to the site alone? Is this not a matter for our elected Members to decide using their local knowledge and common sense?
Mr David Morgans speaking in relation to item 10 on the agenda, Stubnail Post, Oakford, stated that he lived in the parish of Knowstone and was a near neighbour to the application site. When this was first considered he was a Parish Councillor for Knowstone Parish and although he was no longer a Councillor he had retained an interest in this application. As Mid Devon District Council had failed in their obligations to provide any of the required number of gypsy/travellers pitches in their area for the last ten years, is it now the policy of the Council to allow permanent pitches just anywhere?
Mr Jeremy Filmer-Bennett, also speaking in relation to Stubnail Post, Oakford, stated that he was a current Councillor for Knowstone Parish and had been asked by the Parish to consider objecting to this application. He asked whether the councillors had had the opportunity to visit the site and have a good look at it because the current occupation had already exceeded the existing agreement by the people who are there and any future agreement, were it to be confirmed, would continue to have this effect?
Mr Roger Cashmore spoke in relation to item 2 on the Plans List, land south of Broadlands, Thorverton. He stated that he was resident of Thorverton village and while I find the planning officers extremely patient, professional and courteous, I however feel that the current planning processes here in Mid Devon fall short of best practice.
1. You are all aware of a planning appeal in Uffculme and this authorities inability to demonstrate a viable 5 year land supply of deliverable housing and that it’s local plan is also yet to be approved. Does this committee not agree with me that it is unfair that issues regarding the authority’s inability to manage it’s own Forward Planning Process override the legitimate concerns of our community? The valid issues of over 20 local objectors appear to have been overruled by the NPPF and we are now forced to make up the shortfall in the Authorities’ strategic numbers for the inspector. This situation is well understood the applicant, who as a consequence has submitted a pretty cynical application.
2. Section 5 of your Planning Application form concerns Pre application advice. While I respect commercial confidentiality, if an applicant has benefited from pre - application discussions with the authority, Does this committee not agree with me that the public should also be able to benefit from this advice, at some point in the planning process?
3. The application I am currently interested in has an incredible number of inaccuracies. Does this committee not agree with me that the planning process could benefit considerably from a code of conduct allowing applicants to be penalised for unnecessary, errors and omissions?As well actively promoting planning best practice, it discourages time wasting and may even become a new source of income for our cash strapped authority!
4. To the layman, continuous, often contradictory references to National, Regional and Local Planning Policies is incredibly confusing!. Does this committee not agree with me that the authority’s planning process could benefit immensely by the simple expedient of publishing % age weightings alongside each applicable policy used to support a particular decision.? This is no different than current Local Government tendering processes where the provision of decision criteria weightings has been standard practice for many years.
Where does the lay person go for planning advice in Mid Devon? I understand that there has been an active recruiting campaign, but there were no enforcement officers at all for over 6 months of this year, and, more importantly the availability of a morning duty planning officer has also been cut back to only Tuesday and Thursday mornings. Does this committee agree with me that not having the correct number of qualified officers is a false economy that risks increasing workloads for the planning officers?
Mr John Spivey, also speaking in relation to item 2 on the Plans List, land south of Broadlands, Thorverton, stated that although he was a councillor on Thorverton Parish Council he was present at the meeting as a member of the public who lived in the village. He was here specifically to point out a few things regarding the development at the top end of the village which allows new traffic to service the houses and passes through very narrow streets in the village, one of which was a blind corner and very narrow indeed. The applicant for this development owns virtually all the land round the village. If the National Planning Policy Framework is overriding local considerations then why don’t they reapply for a sensible larger site on the eastern end of the village where there is very easy access to the A396 to Tiverton and Exeter without negotiating the narrow streets of the village? This site is adjacent to the Court Barton Close site which is still under construction and producing 20 new houses for the village, 50% of them at affordable rates which was of great benefit to the village. The application for the new Broadlands site makes no mention of affordable housing whatsoever.
Ruth Hickman, speaking in relation to item 10 on the agenda, Stubnail Post, Oakford, stated that she lived in the neighbouring property to this development at Highfield Gate. She knew this site well and would like the committee to consider two questions. Firstly, I am concerned that should this application be allowed, further expansion of this site will occur. The Planning Inspectorate appeal stated as a condition of temporary occupancy that the traveller’s site should remain within the boundary of the hardstanding already in place. In fact the site is already expanded without permission to both the south and east of the hard standing. The expansion to the south is into grassland and is used as an amenity area. The total increase in the area of the site is approximately half an acre producing greatly increased capacity for the siting of additional caravans on this site. My first question to you is that as the site plan does not show the expanded areas, can we assume that these areas will be restored to their previous state in order to comply with the Planning Officers imposed conditions?
My second question also concerns conditions imposed by the Planning Inspector at appeal. The conditions limited the number of caravans on the site to two. There have regularly been 4 caravans on site, additional visiting caravans can be added to that number and many of the caravans are occupied from time to time. A further requirement was the formation of a reed bed soakaway system for sanitation. It would now appear from the site plans that a septic tank has been installed apparently without permission. The whole ethos of this site was supposed to be green living. We have raised our concerns with the Planning Department so my question to you is why have these key concerns not been given to you to consider so that you can reach a more informed decision? Further, in view of the applicants complete disregard for the conditions imposed by the Planning Inspector, what measures could be taken to ensure that any further conditions imposed will be complied with?
Mr Tim Hugill spoke in relation to item 3 on the Plans List, the erection of 30 dwellings in Uffculme. He stated that he was a member of Halberton Parish Council. Whilst this application was ongoing there was already an application (17/300), refused by yourselves, that was currently at appeal. The site for this development near Uffculme lies within Halberton parish and is right adjacent to Uffculme village. At recent Parish Council Planning meetings in Halberton during July and August, given the possibility that the development of the 30 dwellings might still go ahead, our councillors have discussed options for the development of amenities both onsite and linking from the site into the village of Uffculme. Planning Officer Fish initiated some correspondence on 21 August on the S106 topic about amenities being funded for that development and her correspondence started by assuming that although the possible development lies within Halberton parish, that Halberton need not be involved in those S106 agreement discussions. Halberton Parish Council was not copied into that correspondence at the time. In Halberton we take exception to this and would like to know why Halberton Parish Council has not been consulted yet on this S106 matter and when will we be consulted so that we can discuss options for this potential development?
The Chairman indicated that the questions raised would be answered when the particular items were reached on the agenda.