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:
The following public questions were referring to Item 1 on the Plans List – Land NE of Rydon House, Willand.
Cllr Warren (Willand Parish Council) stated that: It has been said that failing to plan is planning to fail. Mid Devon has a current plan and they have an emerging plan, but it has been delayed for reasons that would not be appropriate to visit in this forum. The plans set out locations and numbers of houses to be built at each location. These are coordinated with sites for employment development and with relevant transport systems. We have an Inspector confirm that there is not a proven five-year land supply and every time an applicant mentions this fact some seem to react like a rabbit caught in headlights and want to give in. Some applications have been refused and granted on appeal but is it not the case that if all these extra unplanned sites continue to be added the emerging plan will not be viable and sustainable as housing will be in the wrong places and in wrong numbers to fall in with other policies? There have been a number of unplanned sites approved directly or on appeal and this site is just another such site and will lead to others.
Much is made of the recent Inspector’s report in dismissing the appeal for 259 houses where in spite of the recognised benefits he felt it was outweighed by the significant weight which he placed on the conflict with policies and the scale of the scheme impacting on the sustainability of Willand as a village. The Inspector did not limit his comments purely to the scale but also referred to conflict with policies which he felt still had weight. Is it not the case that the cumulative effect of the number of smaller applications and the loss of the services at this site will have the same scale and harmful effect?
Will this Authority consider standing its ground and refuse these applications as being contrary to policy and then robustly defend them if appealed?
Andrea Glover stated that: This application was validated on the 24th of April 2017. Why has it taken over 9 months to come to committee? The last communication between the agent and an officer shown on the website is dated 22 May 2017. Public consultation ended in May 2017. What has been happening in the intervening 8 months by way of discussion or negotiation which is not placed in the public domain?
Clare Radford stated that: The officer states, ‘The loss of these Community facilities will potentially damage the settlements ability to meet its day to day needs and reduce the supply in the immediate area’. Mention is made of the proposed retail/commercial units and he also says that there is an existing petrol filling station to the north which provides an adequate provision. That filling station is scheduled to close in February 2018. Do members realise that if our employment site is also lost then 8 jobs will go at the hairdressers and 12 in the restaurant on top of those employed in the filling station and shop? Is it realised that Willand, a settlement of about 4,000 souls will be left without a filling station, hairdressers or café?
Sue Leach stated that: It is noted that the new site, although outside of the settlement limits and relatively isolated from the built form of the village is reported to be adjacent to a section of the settlement area. Will members please note that that part of the settlement immediately adjacent to the site is 6 houses on the opposite side of the road? It does then expand into a few more houses but access to the village is by a relatively narrow road which has no pavements, is on a bus route and suffers from considerable ‘on street’ parking as you get nearer to the church and post office.
Vivian Marrow stated that: Under the Planning Service Charter it says that the “aim is to maintain high professional standards making the best possible decisions for local communities.” If this is the case why has the officer submitted a 35 page report which in places is repetitive in relation to a recent appeal yet the objections raised by 72 residents of Willand are summarised and have the appearance of being dismissed and discounted in 8 ‘one liners’ amounting to a total of 53 words?
Cllr Grantham (Willand Parish Council) stated that: Could someone please explain in clear terms the mathematics of the recommendations surrounding the proposed S106 agreement? If the affordable housing provision is 35% under the current local plans then surely the affordable housing provision should be 10.5 or rounded up 11 houses. There appears to be a calculation under Paragraph 8 of the report which shows an equation to take off 2 reducing it to 9. How is this arrived at please?
Why are 5 dwellings only being shown to contribute to public open space at Chestnut Drive? How are the children from this proposed site meant to get to that play area? This is not the nearest play area and it is understood that MDDC have it under managed decline.
Why is there no mention of a contribution to re-site the bus stop and extend a section of footpath as outlined in the Highways response as a binding agreement rather than be put in condition 13 which can be varied or ignored? Surely this is relevant to fit in with policies surrounding transport and pedestrian safety?
The officer proposes that the commercial units should be provided before the demolition of the existing businesses. How is that proposed to work as the indicative plans would not allow that and the entrance would be over the existing fuel tanks? It is noted that the officer appears to support the Parish Council view that the commercial units should be to the front of the site. Does he mean accessed from the roadside? This could mean a further separate entrance and parking. Why does this not have to happen until the 5th house is occupied? There is also to be a ‘football pitch’.
What assurance can there be that this would happen? Willand has previous experience of such agreements which have come to nought. Two developments where there were to be commercial units where officers subsequently agreed to housing being built instead. There was also to be an all-weather pitch on another site but instead we have houses and even less public open space.
The proposed public open space will be managed by a management company for the development. What measures will there be to ensure that this is open to all and maintained in a useable condition?
Cllr Mander (Willand Parish Council) stated that: The officer reports that the ‘proposal would make a small contribution towards increasing the housing supply in Mid Devon and weight must be given to this’. Why has he not balanced this by mentioning the fact that 28 affordable houses have recently been approved and that there are 42 houses [not 40 as he refers to] included in the emerging local plan? If these 30 houses are approved we are advised that the 42 will still stay in the local plan and so with the 28 we have a total of 100 extra houses with no additional infrastructure and a loss of facilities. On top of that there is mention of an additional 51 houses in Willand since the last census and no infrastructure improvements other than a minor addition to the school building. Although 259 were turned down on appeal approval of this site will open up the appeal site for further applications as it will then be within the settlement area if it is extended to include this application.
The Chairman indicated that these issues would be discussed further when the item was debated.