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:
Samantha Baker referring to item 1 on the plans list stated: what I would like to ask is the committee aware just how precious this field has been over decades as a social meeting place for generations in this village. This is where people come to walk their dogs, there is nowhere else in the village for us to do that, we have a children’s park where no dogs are allowed. This brings old and younger generations together and I am in this field on a daily basis and I have spoken to old people that come and say they feel safe in this field to walk their dog and let it off because they know they are seen by the houses at the lower end of Silverdale. It mixes the generations together in a way that Silverton doesn’t offer in any other way. I think it’s really important at this time that we continue to bring generations together in a positive social way.
Mr Campbell speaking with regard item 1 on the plans list stated: I am a resident of Silverdale the question I am asking is why during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan there is consultation with the public, it was strongly felt that only small developments would be acceptable. This proposal goes against everything the local people who took part requested. If this is granted it makes a mockery of all the hard work that has been done by the Neighbourhood Plan Committee.
Mr Byrom referring to items 10 and 11 on the agenda stated that residents of Sampford Peverell are deeply concerned and confused by Items 10 and 11 on your agenda (concerning your very proper refusal of permission for 60 houses at Higher Town).
Councillors, we fear that officers may be trying to persuade you to soften some aspects of your ‘Reasons for Refusal’. Undertaking this in a ‘private’ session would allow officers to hide embarrassing errors made in processing the application. Objectors have pointed out such errors at intervals but have had no response. Maybe expensive legal advice has finally brought this home. Or maybe officers will continue to use error-strewn arguments and careless mis-reading of drawings and reports as they attempt to weaken your resolve. How can we ever know?
So, my questions to officers are -
1. As ‘statutory parties’ to an appeal, objectors should have been informed of its ‘Start Date’. That has not happened. The PINS website shows no appeal relating to this application. There is therefore currently no appeal. In these circumstances, please will you withdraw items 10 and 11 from today’s agenda. It is wrong to discuss an appeal that does not exist.
2. Please will you confirm that all additional costs incurred by this Council in processing this application have been and will be clearly identifiable (as soon as they are known) within the payment statements published by Mid Devon? If there are other costs or gains that have not been published, please publish them straight away.
3. Will you please give a clear, unambiguous and direct assurance to public and press that ‘Three Rivers Development’, a ‘wholly owned company of Mid Devon District Council’ has never and will never be involved in any aspect of the development of the Higher Town site.
4. If it is agreed that any part of the discussion of agenda Item 11 must take place without the press or public being in attendance, please will you ensure that the minutes of the meeting record the substance of those discussions as well as any decisions arising from them?
5. Comments made by the Highway Authority officer to this Committee on 31 July bring questions of direct harm to designated heritage assets into play with new force. This, in turn, would affect the ‘tilted balance’ in this application through paragraph 11 and footnote 6 of the Framework. Would Mrs Tebbey be prepared to meet me to discuss this matter along with those Members and other persons who are now acting for the Council in any potential appeal? After all, surely we are all now working together to defend this Council’s decision to refuse planning permission?
Peter Dumble addressing items 10 and 11 on the agenda stated: councillors I hope you as angry, puzzled and concerned as I and many others are in Sampford Peverell at the extraordinary inclusion of items 10 and 11 on the agenda. We have of course no idea why or what information officers are asking you to discuss in secrecy and behind closed doors. And not knowing the process being followed here I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that all councillors have already had sight of the 95 pages of redacted material. How you would decide the public interest otherwise escapes me. And if you haven’t seen the whole document I urge you to postpone this item for another day to allow you time to do so. Perhaps you could confirm if you have seen it or not? Forgive us for suspecting that the resolution in item 10 is more to do with a cover up of embarrassment surrounding financial and legal arrangements. I will say that again, cover up of embarrassment surrounding financial and legal arrangements and errors made in the process which Mr Byron has pointed out, there are many. Are the chickens coming home to roost or is pressure being applied to water down your grounds for approval at appeal. So whatever the reasons, councillors all we can ask today is that you robustly challenge and scrutinise the real need for confidentiality so that you can make an informed judgement on whether the public interest is truly being served or if the motion is simply and inappropriately being used to circumvent and hide inconvenient and embarrassing truths. We have learnt to respect this committees judgement over the last 2 years and today more than ever we need you to do your job forensically and as well as you can. Councillors this is a serious moment and the reputation and integrity of our Council is in your hands.
The Chairman indicated that the answers to questions with regard to the Silverdale application would be provided when the item was debated, however as Item 11 was a Part II report, the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration would provide answers at this point in proceedings.
The Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration referring to Mr Byrom’s questions stated that a letter had been received from the Inspectorate on 9 October with regard to an appeal, however the appeal was not yet live as further documentation had been requested. Notification to interested parties did not take place until the appeal was deemed live. With regard to additional costs, we would not normally separate out spend against general consultancy or legal consultancy budget lines by project in our financial reporting to Committees. With regard to the involvement of 3 Rivers Development Limited with the site, She was not aware of any involvement by that company to date, but could not give assurances on who develops any site that gains planning consent; with regard to the minutes, the minutes would be provided within the limitations of Local Government Act 1972.
The Group Manager for Legal Services and Monitoring Officer stated that with regard to a meeting, she would respond in writing to Mr Byrom, she reiterated that the appeal had been lodged but not validated.
Referring to Mr Dumble’s question regarding whether the committee had been sent all the paperwork, the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration confirmed that they had.
Lisa Broom referring to item 1 on the plans list stated: I would like to question the inaccurate and flawed traffic statement provided by the applicant. I live at the junction of Tiverton Road and Upexe Road which Highways have rightly stated is substandard. It is jammed on a daily basis with cars, HGV’s and tractors due to it being very narrow. The proposed development will make far more than the 9 peak journeys as stated and is also not taking into account any provision of safety for pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair users. The site is not a suitable location for provision of accessible affordable housing due to the substandard access to the village. Section 106 mitigation does not address these issues. It is also important to note there are currently 20 family homes for sale in Silverton which include 5 new build homes in the centre which have been unsold for a year. The proposed development is also not supported by the Neighbourhood Plan or Local Plan, the site if on time for submission would not have been considered by the community. A small scale development is preferred at various sites. It appears that the planning officer has also been misled by Mr King Smith of Stags Planning on this so in summary I urge the committee to refuse the application as it stands.
Mrs Nova Odgers speaking about item 1 on the plans list asked: I would like to know the motivation for this development because as the previous speaker said there are many houses in the village that are up for sale and are hard to sell. So I wonder why the developer thought that there would be a need for more houses, perhaps the low cost element comes into play but we have so many terraced cottages in the village that you would consider to be at the bottom end I wonder what the need is?
Ross Clements referring to item 1 on the plans list stated: my concerns would be about the 9 vehicle figure that has been published, I don’t believe that those figures are accurate to support a 20 house proposal. Currently there are 6 houses within the Exe View development and at peak hours they produce 10 vehicles leaving so multiply that and I think it will substantially more than the 9. Secondly I would like to bring to your attention that as a resident of Exe View we have 2 parking spaces for visitors, if the development goes ahead it looks like we will lose those and I would like to know what provisions are in place to keep our small green area that children play football on and also what will happen to our parking for guests.
John Foster in relation to item 1 on the plans list asked my concern is on page 20 it mentions it’s only going to produce 30 secondary pupils and 5 primary pupils I don’t know where they get this calculation from because if you put in 20 family type dwellings surely on just pure chance it’s going to produce 20 children so if they are saying it’s going to produce 5 and then they say they are going to produce so much money how are they actually working out how many children this development is producing. Also I would like to ask that in future there will be, from what we understand, the developer will then be asking to put more housing on the same area and if he goes for another 20 that that now produces another 20 pupils for the local schools which are overstretched as it is so how do they work out how many children are going to be produced by 20 family houses?
Patrick Grimes speaking on item 1 of the plans list stated I would like to make you aware that the site is actually up on the hill when they say you can’t be seen you can actually see Haldon Hill, Dartmoor, Blackdown Hills crossing nearly into Dorset and nearly up into Somerset and also taking into consideration it’s on the side of the Exe Valley which was being looked at to be an ANOB is this the sort of ribbon development that we really need?