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 Cashmore referring to Item 4 on the Plans List (School Lane, Thorverton) made the following statement:
Thank you chair and members for the opportunity to raise some concerns regarding the current planning process, a written response would be appreciated in due course. I am grateful to Councillor Deed for calling in agenda item 7. 4 that I may facilitate this.
We have also shared a number of photos of the site.
At face value, this application is about simple access to a field in my village of Thorverton.
1) On the portal there is an unattributed, hand drawn, layout sketch with no point of reference, measurements, elevations or sections. This has been approved by Highways, subject to conditions. A study of their own Planning Design Manual however confirms that this proposal bears little resemblance to their own standards, for example “field access must be square to the road” Further, the conditions called for are also mathematically and physically impossible to achieve, specifically a gradient not to exceed 1in10, a useable sweep radius and a workable drainage solution.
2) There are important concerns regarding public safety. School Lane is simply too narrow to provide a sweep radius to turn a modern tractor and trailer and as the applicant does not own the land immediately to the North of this entrance it is therefore not possible to achieve either the vertical or horizontal visibility splays required by highways to achieve SSD.
3) The report suggests that the applicant owns land at Shobrooke and that this application will ease the journey to his farm. Not true, the applicant does not own any land but actually rents land and buildings at Shobrooke, the owner confirms it is self-contained and needing no external traffic movements at all.
4) The report further suggests that this application is needed in order to reduce the journey distance to the applicant’s farm near Woodbury. Note: the applicant’s latest map has chosen not to advise you that there are in fact Three further gateways available to him a little further South onto School Lane, all closer to Woodbury and that for the last 4 years his preferred route has always been South, through Brampford Speke, St David’s Station, Western Way and onto junction 30. There never have been any 3 point turns conducted at Yellowford.
5) Finally, even if a tractor did exit North onto School Lane into the village, photos confirm that it is impossible then to turn left to Shobrooke and this has never ever been attempted.
Committee, to summarise I believe your planners need a better support framework, one that will allow them to conduct much higher levels of diligence. The residents of Thorverton also deserve a far better planning service than this, and are entitled to understand how the council planning process could possibly allow these situations to occur? I feel fully justified in requesting the committee to overturn spurious approvals such as this.
Finally, we are perplexed as to why a farm gateway needs the support of the National Planning Policy Framework, and that this application may well turn out to be the precursor for a much bigger planning event sometime in the near future.
We hope this is not the case, but, if proved otherwise, and having now pointed out to you that we believe the council may have been deliberately misled and that this application is unsafe, impossible to achieve and that there is no real agricultural need, then this attempt to pass off this application as being essential for agriculture, is not just disingenuous, but is downright deceitful, and will be construed by many to be a clear abuse of the planning system, for which those responsible should be held to account.
Karen Massey referring to Item 11 on the agenda – (Tree Preservation Order at Aubyns Wood Avenue, Tiverton) stated my question is : the Local Government Association stated in 2017 that "Taxpayers to subsidise planning application costs by £1bn over next five years" and of 26 February 2018 the association stated that “Extra council tax income in 2018/19 will not protect under-pressure local services”
Current legislation exempts any local authority from charging for applications to undertake work on trees covered by a preservation order. As a result there is a shortfall to all authorities. There is a lengthy document on the local authority website to provide a breakdown of costs and the lack of satisfaction by the users of the planning system.
Is this now the time to reconsider the number of TPOs which are handed out in this area which would help balance the accounts and also help consumers with the planning system?
Cllr Warren (Willand Parish Council) referring to Item 10 on the agenda (land North of Rydon House, Willand) stated:
1. At the Planning Committee on 31 January 2018 a question was asked as to why this application had taken over 9 months to come to committee when the last communication between an officer and the applicant agent had been on 22 May 2017. The minuted answer given by the officer stated: “With regard to the delay in determining the application, the validation of the application had taken place on 24 April 2017 but it had been submitted after the application for the 259 dwellings on the adjacent site and that there had been a need to determine that application first and to await the outcome of the appeal.” That decision has led to an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination although the Inspectorate have declined to accept it.
Who decided that there was a need to determine that application for 259 houses first and await the outcome of the appeal?
What was the detail of that need bearing in mind that the officer has stated in the implications report that “Members will be well aware of the need to consider only the current proposal at this present time”. That being the case why an unacceptable delay in relation to waiting for another application decision?
Was that need, and the decision to cause the delay beyond the regulatory time scale for determination, documented as a decision and recorded for future reference should the need arise in relation to any appeal or costs claim?
Was the cabinet member for Planning consulted?
Was the Chair of Planning Committee consulted?
Were our Ward members consulted?
The Chief Executive recorded the decision to delay the local plan, his reasons and who he had consulted and it is in the public domain.
Cllr Grantham (Willand Parish Council) referring to Item 10 on the agenda (Land north of Rydon House, Willand) stated:
The Planning Committee has already approved 35 houses to be built on an exception site which under the emerging local plan was to be replaced by the referred to site for 42 houses. We are told that that site will not be removed from the plan and therefore Willand will have 77 houses instead of the planned 42. If this 30 are approved then Willand will be faced with 107 more houses instead of the planned number of 42. Will members please accept that this unplanned development will put further pressure on an already fragile, modest and basic provision of facilities? Please stand by your original decision to consider refusal.
Andrea Glover referring to Item 10 on the agenda (Land north of Rydon House, Willand) stated:
The Officer gives his view as to the findings of the Planning Inspector in relation to an adjoining site. Will members please note that the Inspector in his findings in paragraph 10 found that policies COR 17 and COR 18 were relevant to his considerations? In paragraphs 13 and 14 he found that the application was in conflict with both policies – no mention of scale at this point. He also found that there was conflict with COR 1 and COR 12 as the intention was that the main development of housing should take place around the main larger settlements. In paragraph 55 he writes of current policies, “I consider them to be in general conformity with the broad sustainable development objectives of the Framework. I therefore give significant weight to the appeal scheme’s conflict with these development plan policies.” Will members please stand by the findings that this application is outside of the local plan and it will be an isolated development compared with the main part of the village?
Mr Ison referring to the proposed Tree Preservation Orders within the agenda stated that he wished to offer his support to the Tree Officer in order to preserve the wooded areas around Howden Court. The Local Plan had requested the retention of the woodland belts in the allocation for development in this area. He cited examples where some of the trees had been removed before the blanket Tree Preservation Order had been put in place. The Planning Officers had felt that the loss of the trees was not considered to be lawful for the visual amenity of the site. He emphasised the need for reasonable preservation of the wooded area.
Sue Leach referring to Item 10 on the agenda (Land North of Rydon House, Willand) stated:
On page 98 of your bundle at Suggested Reason for refusal 2 it refers to ‘car mechanics’. That needs to be removed as they have relocated elsewhere in the village. In considering the balance of community facilities will members also please take account of the fact that the Coop, although approved has shown no sign of being built at this time so that did not ought to be taken into account if this application has to be considered in isolation?
On page 95 in your bundle at 2 the officer refers to the site being connected to the village by continuous footways. Will members please note that that is not correct. The Old Village Road from the site to the post office and church has no footways other than a short area near to Elmside and Townlands? Pedestrians have to walk in the road and it is a bus route. There is a footway on the main road on one side. It is a 40mph speed limit most of the way and recommendations are that this footpath should ideally be 2m wide – it is not? Is public safety part of the planning considerations of this committee?
David Marrow referring to Item 10 on the agenda (Land North of Rydon House, Willand) stated:
At the last meeting on 31 January, it was stated by the committee that this application had to be considered in isolation and that potential influencing factors (such as the 125 houses application) should not be taken into account.
My question is, why not?
Having just retired from 44 years in the commercial world, in my experience, no professional organisation would consider significant projects or decisions in isolation when it was known or suspected that there could be other significant events that might add to the impact of the project under consideration.
Any one project can have a significant impact but, the impact of several projects could well be greater than the sum of each one. Hence the need for a longer term ‘vision’ and a rolling 3 or 5 year plan, against which the merits of each project can be judged.
Mr Trump referring to Item 4 on the plans List (School Lane, Thorverton) stated that he lived opposite the site and that he owned the land next to the site, he was concerned about damage to his property, the lane and the wall. He felt that the whole scheme seemed impracticable and invited Members to come and see for themselves.
The Chairman indicated that answers would be provided to questions when the items were debated. Mr Cashmore would receive the written response he requested.