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.
Hon. Alderman Mrs Linda Holloway referring to all applications stated:
S106 obligations between the three applications:
· Will the officers’ apportionment be negotiable by the 3 applicants?
· Can an applicant refuse or challenge the apportionment?
· If they can, what assurances will officers give us that there will be no further dilution of the S106 requirements?
Recommendations to approve each application:
· To ensure S106 is delivered for the whole of phase 1, shouldn’t permission be conditional on all 3 agreements being signed simultaneously after apportionment, to prevent any reneging and jeopardising the whole package?
Footway from the site to St George’s View:
There is a long section alongside an extremely tall wall adjacent to the highway at St George’s Well House. The wall received retrospective planning permission but only after DCC Highways insisted on a sloping narrow kerb as a buffer that could not be walked on, to comply with safety issues. Construction of a full width footway was considered not safe for pedestrians.
· Have safety requirements changed?
Full Application - national space standards:
· Why is it deemed acceptable to approve 8 Leicester houses 2 square meters below national space standards?
· Why are 39 Anmouth houses each 10 sq meters less than the required national standard being compromised on?
A terrace of 4 houses has only 3.5 meters garden depth to a wall, below the adequate amenity space.
· They all fall short of national standards, so is this not a compromise too far to be included in ‘planning balance’ when people will have to live in these conditions?
The report describes ‘awkward parking arrangements’ in one section
· Why are you saying this is alright?
Several committee members will remember a previous Head of Planning telling us that we should not be satisfied with the ordinary, with standard housing and development, but we should insist on the best.
· Why are members being recommended to approve what the report says is a ‘standard layout and standard house type’ just because the developer cannot make a better development viable?
· Don’t we deserve better?
Adam Powell stated:I live midway between Cullompton and Honiton. I guess from the number of large historic listed buildings and the width of the market high street that Cullompton was originally the richer town. It certainly was a fine market town, built on local wealth by local labour. Of course local people need homes to live in and be proud of. My question isto ask the people in this room, will this development give us that, or will it give us a housing estate tacked onto the edge of an expanding dormitory town that one simply passes through?
I am specifically concerned about the following:
· Significantly below minimum delivery of affordable housing (10% proposed, 35% recommended) with no re-statement of a definition of ‘affordable’. What are the average selling prices of these affordable houses predicted to be?
· No delivery of good quality social housing to rent
· No delivery of sheltered housing for the elderly
· A cursory mention of carbon neutral building with no commitment detail
· No commitment on low carbon local energy sourcing: Photovoltaic installations or ground source energy
· No delivery of self-build plots, reference Kevin Mclouds new series Channel 4 ‘The Street’
· No mention of the new rail station at Cullompton. Though good allocation of monies to bus services but no detail
· No detail on creating local employment, tourism, care of the elderly, workshop space, light industrial units, shops
· No provision for youth services or providing a sixth form
In summary these proposals fall short in delivering truly affordable homes for local wages. Houses that are not committed to be built to carbon neutral standards, that do not allow people to reduce car usage, by either using public transport or working locally. In so many ways this development will not help young people.
Here is a chance for collaboration between the Town Council, Mid Devon, Persimmon and local people to create a beacon of development that delivers creatively on affordability, need and sustainability. There is a wonderful opportunity for creating a community that is proud to say it lives in Cullompton, to shape history to create a future proofed development that serves local people. In twenty years lets still be proud of this development not ashamed of it.
Ian Emmett stated
The 3 outline planning proposals currently being considered will span the entire width of the proposed development at North West Cullompton and deliver the spine road that will transit from Tiverton Road to Willand Road. It is noted that access to the development will be from Willand Road.
Cullompton Town Council requires that:
· All construction traffic accesses the development site via Willand Road and, at no time, are permitted to access the site through St George’s View or Tiverton Road
· The spine road is delivered and open for public use in a state fit for adoption by the Highway Authority as soon as is reasonably practicable and within 3 years of the first development commencing
· No dwellings or private off-street parking places (such as garages or driveways) are open directly ono the spine road
· No parking to be permitted along the length of the spine road
· There are off-road places, such as laybys with covered bus stops, for buses to stop to allow passengers to embark and alight
Martin Smith – Town Councillor stated:
I wanted to add on to Adam Powell’s questions and it’s particularly related to the Neighbourhood Plan. We have been working very hard on that for the last 5 years and many of the questions that Adam Powell has raised are covered in that Neighbourhood Plan, it has not been adopted yet but my question is:
· How relevant the planning committee considers the Neighbourhood Planning document that’s been developed over 5 years, covers many of the questions asked, and it will, given a fair wind, be adopted later this year by which time the development will probably still not have begun. So the legal standing of the Neighbourhood Plan when it’s adopted means that it will take precedence and the issues contained in there about affordable housing, construction plans etc and particularly about a community lead development rather than a developer lead development. So can the committee assure us that the emerging Cullompton Neighbourhood Plan will be taken into consideration and its legal standing, when it’s adopted, will be acknowledged?
The Chairman then asked the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration to respond to this question:
She responded by stating that it was certainly the case that the weight that you can give to an emerging plan with regard to decision making on planning applications related to the stage that the emerging plan had got to towards its adoption. At the moment her understanding was that there has been some public consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan but it was yet to go through an examination process and it was yet to go through a referendum, so before that examination there is still some considerable uncertainty about the final form of the plan. At the stage that we are at now in terms of the decision making on these three applications we would only able to give very limited weight, if any weight at all, to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. In terms of when it’s been through examination and has been adopted, at that stage it becomes part of the formal development plan for the area and it will be given significant weight in decision making. You have asked about legal standing in relation to these applications and we have to look at it at the time of point of the decisions, so Members before you today you have recommendations on these applications and you are being asked to consider them and determine them. It is today that you need to consider the degree of weight the Neighbourhood Plan has, which I’m indicating at this stage, is very little.
The Chairman indicated that the other questions would be considered when the applications were debated.