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 Blackmore speaking in relation to item 2 on the Plans List, Bradford Farm, Uplowman, Tiverton, asked whether the Council was confident that the conditions put forward as part of the officers recommendation will be properly enforced if they are breached? If the ‘hours of work’ condition is breached on a Bank Holiday, how long will it take for the enforcement section to investigate? Conditions 4,5,6,7 and 8 all need to be monitored closely. With regard to condition 8 does that mean they can use whatever foul drainage system they want for 6 months before they have put in a proper system? Seems to be a daft condition as it is a retrospective application, shouldn’t the details and its installation be required immediately?
Cllr Warren (Willand Parish Council) referring to Item 10 and 11 (Meadow Park/Lane, Willand) on the agenda stated: In paragraph 1.1 of the officer report members are reminded that it is the comments of the inspectors which are relevant and not the fact that they dismissed the appeals. With that in mind are the comments in paragraph 2.2 really addressing the members concern as to ‘The size and scale of the proposal and the impact on the character of the village.’?
There are more issues than those addressed by the officer. 125 houses is more than the 42 planned for over the period of the plan and please remember the 35 affordable which are being built now and were not to be in the emerging plan. It is not just about the look but cumulative impact on facilities and infrastructure which will not be improved. Are officers attempting to ‘water down’ reasons given by members in an attempt to make it less likely to be able to defend an appeal? If officers keep recommending approval of these major and other developments in villages contrary to the Local Plan Review is it not calling into question considerable areas of the plan housing provision before it has even been fully examined?
Why have officers not recommended citing the fact that approval of this application would be in breach of policies COR 17 and COR 18? Even taking into account the lack of 5 year land supply issue and the limited weight that can be given to them they still have some relevance and have been considered as relevant by two inspectors in recent appeals in the village.
For the 259 dwellings application the Inspector makes reference to one or both of these policies in paragraphs 10, 12, 13 and 51. He considered them to be relevant and the proposal was in conflict with the policy. Why have officers left out reference to conflict with COR 12 when the inspector clearly identified the earlier proposal as being in conflict with it?
In his response to the Esso site application the inspector refers to either/or policies COR 17 and COR 18 in paragraphs 16 and 17 and identifies conflict. Are members really convinced that the suggested one reason for refusal in paragraph 3.1 of the report is detailed and robust enough to withstand any future appeal?
Cllr Grantham (Willand Parish Council) referring to Item 10 and 11 (Meadow Park/Lane, Willand) on the agenda stated:
On page 90 under recommendations subject to S106 obligations items g) and h) contributions are to be made to aid two parish supported projects. Quote‘the monies are to be paid to MDDC prior to commencement of the development.’ Being mindful that these payments are seen by officers as ‘tilting the balance’ to allow the permission for 125 houses – three times those planned for under the emerging plan and in addition to 35 affordable houses being built not in the emerging plan, can we please have a clear definition of the words ‘prior to commencement of the development’. Is it when permission is received for outline; reserved matters approval; the day before work is started on the site OR some other explanation? How long will it take for the Parish Council to obtain the money from MDDC? The projects are in the planning stage now so money in two or more years time will not be of great help and costs will have risen.
Is it appropriate that since the original planning committee findings on 5 September the applicant has approached Willand Primary School and DCC Education to send correspondence to the committee? Is it also appropriate for the applicant to ask for the wording of the entrance application to be amended at this critical stage of the decision making process? In relation to the school is it of concern to find that these monies are needed to cover failings of DCC Education for a number of years to properly fund facilities at the school to cater for the increase in numbers? The Parish strongly support the school to have the extra facilities but it must be questioned if this is the appropriate way for it to be done when the extra housing proposed outside of the plan will put an unproportionate strain on other services and facilities within the village? Should not the cumulative impact on all services and facilities be considered equally?
Mr Marrow referring to Item 10 and 11 (Meadow Park/Lane, Willand) on the agenda stated: The report officers have set out information and argument under the headings of Financial and Legal Implications and Risk Assessment. In recent local appeals there has been no appointment of planning consultants or legal representation so why should this be different? Why is not the risk of a judicial review raised if committee should approve the application which is so clearly in conflict with current and emerging policies? Have they not again, as with the earlier ‘Esso Garage’ application, put the Council at risk of an appeal for non-determination – a point raised by the applicant although not pursued at this time?
Mr Dyer referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Crediton Garden Centre) asked please can the planning officer inform us why garden centres are not considered as retail operations under Mid Devon planning policies? It is clear we hope to everyone what is proposed is a major retail shopping destination so surely it should be treated as retail? If it was treated as retail it would clearly be refused on the grounds of disproportionate scale and being in open countryside.
Mrs Tucker referring again to Item 1 on the Plans List asked - please can the planning officer advise why planning permission on part of the land has been refused 6 times before (plus twice on appeal) due to being in open countryside? Why is this now not a material consideration?
Secondly, the planning officer’s report stated that the 2003 permission is sufficient to develop the site further. However this new proposal has 13 times more buildings than in the 2003 application. Why is it now deemed acceptable for such a large shop to be developed in open countryside? Thirdly, the 2003 permission restricted any A1 general retail use on the site due to it being in the open countryside. Why now is the applicant permitted to sell A1 general goods in 85% of the store?
Mr Wood again referring to Item. 1 on the Plans List asked please can the planning officer comment on why the application is not being refused on the basis of inappropriate scale, whether it is classified as retail or not?
Total buildings in the application are nearly 3 times larger than the existing structures. These additions are therefore massively disproportionate, well over and above the size of the original, and the application accordingly should be refused.
Mr Bond again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List asked can the planning officer please comment on why the impact on Crediton town centre has been vastly underestimated? In reality, the impact on the Crediton town shops due to this development would be massive and devastating. The pet shop, angling shop, my shop, the butchers, card shops, and the flower shop in the town centre would be hugely affected. Many shops could close. Why are you not concerned about the vitality of the town centre which would be destroyed. The 500m2 restriction in the officer’s report will not be enough to protect the town shops. Homeleigh could sell whatever they want in the remaining 85% of the store. We believe that the application should be refused and if this is not possible then much stronger restrictions need to be put in place.
Ms Holloway asked would the planning officer please comment on why the impact of the massive cafe on the local economy has been hugely underestimated? The size of the cafe is enormous, this size could seat up to 500 people at a time. A cafe of this size is bound to have a major negative impact on all the cafes and pubs in Crediton town centre and the surrounding areas and will lead to up to 50 job losses from catering alone, based on our survey of local businesses.
Ms Hutchings asked can the planning officer please comment on why the proposed new entrance has not been judged as a major safety concern? It is on a 60 mph A road with a blind brow and only 5 seconds to stop before the new entrance. It takes cars at least 6 seconds to stop at 60mph.
Highways response was that an independent safety inspector has deemed this access safe. However, with large lorries turning right into the path of the oncoming 60 mph traffic, common sense would tell us that this is an accident waiting to happen?
Mr Schofield asked can the planning officer comment on why the applicant is relying on a previous small planning permission to now justify such a massive expansion? The 2003 permission was not lawfully commenced in time, except for some work at the entrance and erecting polytunnels. The small proposed shop and small tea room were never built, so the permissions for shops and cafe effectively lapsed. The 2003 application was supported at the time as a small scale rural regeneration. However, the now proposed cafe is 14 times larger than the never built 2003 cafe, and the shop is 13 times larger the never built 2003 shop. Surely this should be recognised as not simply an expansion of an existing operation, but a massive redevelopment and it should be refused.
Mr Tucker on behalf of Mr Peacock asked can the planning officer please answer why a 10 year retail impact assessment was not carried out as it should have been by law. This appears to have been avoided on a technicality. The sales area is claimed to be only increasing in size by a tiny 315m2 which anyone on the site visit would see is ludicrous. The whole of the site is claimed as having been designated for retail sales in the 2003 planning permission. However over half of the site on the 2003 plan was actually designated and fenced off for growing or keeping stock only and was never used for retail sales.
Now the increase in covered retail space is enormous - this store would be 1½ times bigger than Tesco, and 5 times bigger than the new very large Mole Avon store in Crediton. Surely a full 10 year retail impact assessment should really have been carried out? As this was not done due to a technicality a false conclusion was reached that there would only be 1% effect on town centre turnover. We believe this is a gross under estimate and that it in reality it would be 20%. Therefore the application should be refused to protect the town centre.
Mr Tucker asked can the planning officer please comment on why the sequential test in the application did not assess that the land adjoining Tesco, which has much better road links and is still under developed, was not considered as an alternative and better option for such a large scale garden centre. We believe that this should have been done as part of the process.
Ms Green asked can the planning officer please comment on how the conclusion could be reached that there will be an inperceptible impact on existing highway users? Such a massive centre will be a 25 fold increase in traffic based on its turnover forecasts. Parking spaces grow from 20 to 241. There will be similar major traffic congestion already seen at large regional garden centres such as Whitehall near Bath and Otter Nurseries. it is clear that the conclusion from Highways is fundamentally flawed. How will this massive increase in congestion, especially at peak times at Christmas and in Spring be dealt with.
Could the planning officer please answer why a full landscape assessment was not carried out? The landscape assessment was very superficial, resulting in a false conclusion that there would be little landscape impact. In reality the scale of the buildings are just so huge, 3 times more than currently.
Such a massive development would clearly have a big impact on landscape, even if the building would be set down by levelling the site. These large buildings would still be very prominent and visible from a long distance away. Accordingly the application should be refused.
Mr Counter asked can the planning officer please comment on how the increase in air pollution caused by a massive increase in HGV vehicles, coaches and cars going through Crediton town centre, in what has been an air quality control zone, will be mitigated in future? Could the planning officer please answer why a full public consultation was not carried out? Residents were not aware of a public meeting, as it was only announced on the applicant’s facebook page at 2 hours notice. Many residents have mentioned this in their objection letters. Surely the correct procedure for public consultation has not been followed, and the application is invalid?
The Chairman indicated that the questions would be considered during the debate on the applications.