to consider the following question received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.
(a) From Cllr Birch to Cllr Tucker, Leader of Council
‘By reference to the One Council Consultation Survey Questions, how many have participated to date? How many of the participants are from South Hams? How many of the South Hams participants have responded to Question 2 by stating they support the idea of creating a new Council and how many are opposed or are against the idea?’
(b) From Cllr Birch to Cllr Tucker, Leader of Council
‘By reference to the telephone survey being undertaken in respect of the One Council Consultation how many have participated to date? How many of the participants are from South Hams? How many have indicated they are in favour of the idea of creating a new Council and how many are opposed or are against the idea?’
(c) From Cllr Hodgson to Cllr Tucker, Leader of Council
‘Further to the many concerns that have been raised by South Hams residents that the public consultation on the formal joining of South Hams and West Devon has been biased towards a positive response, please could the Leader assure this Council that the vote taken on 31 October will not be politically whipped? Also that further measures and options to ensure the independent financial security of this council and its ability to continue to deliver front line services will be considered if the decision is taken to remain as South Hams District Council.’
(d) From Cllr Hodgson to Cllr Tucker, Leader of Council
‘Can the Leader give assurance that our Planning Enforcement is working as the illegal wall at Meadowside in Dartington remains in situ 15 months after being reported for investigation and apparently has now been put forward for planning. This planning by stealth undermines confidence and the good reputation of our planning system, how can we tighten up our system to avoid these planning mistakes being legitimatised?’
Minutes:
34/17
Whilst questions on notice were not normally permitted at Special Council meetings, the Chairman advised that she, in consultation with the Leader of Council, had exercised her discretion to enable for two questions to be considered at this meeting. These questions were as follows:-
From Cllr Birch to Cllr Tucker, Leader of Council
(a) By reference to the One Council Consultation Survey Questions, how many have participated to date? How many of the participants are from South Hams? How many of the South Hams participants have responded to Question 2 by stating they support the idea of creating a new Council and how many are opposed or are against the idea?
In response, Cllr Tucker advised that he had deliberately refrained from receiving updates during the consultation process and had chosen to wait until the results had been finalised after the deadline had passed on 8 October 2017.
Cllr Birch proceeded to ask a supplementary question relating specifically to Question 4 of the survey. In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.5, since this question did not arise directly from his original reply, Cllr Tucker did not choose to respond to this supplementary.
From Cllr Birch to Cllr Tucker, Leader of Council
(b) By reference to the telephone survey being undertaken in respect of the One Council Consultation how many have participated to date? How many of the participants are from South Hams? How many have indicated they are in favour of the idea of creating a new Council and how many are opposed or are against the idea?
As with his previous response, Cllr Tucker again advised that he had deliberately refrained from receiving updates during the consultation process and had chosen to wait until the results had been finalised after the deadline had passed on 8 October 2017.
Cllr Birch proceeded to ask a supplementary question relating to the actual cost of the telephone survey. In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.5, since this question did not arise directly from his original reply, Cllr Tucker did not choose to respond to this supplementary.
From Cllr Hodgson to Cllr Tucker, Leader of Council
(c) ‘Further to the many concerns that have been raised by South Hams residents that the public consultation on the formal joining of South Hams and West Devon has been biased towards a positive response, please could the Leader assure this Council that the vote taken on 31 October will not be politically whipped? Also that further measures and options to ensure the independent financial security of this council and its ability to continue to deliver front line services will be considered if the decision is taken to remain as South Hams District Council.’
In response, Cllr Tucker informed that it was a matter for each political party to decide whether or not they instigated any whipping arrangements. For clarity, Cllr Tucker stated that the Conservative Group was not whipped by him.
Cllr Hodgson proceeded to ask a supplementary question that sought an assurance that the vote would not be politically biased. In reply, Cllr Tucker referred to the response that he had given to the original question.
From Cllr Hodgson to Cllr Tucker, Leader of Council
(d) ‘Can the Leader give assurance that our Planning Enforcement is working as the illegal wall at Meadowside in Dartington remains in situ 15 months after being reported for investigation and apparently has now been put forward for planning. This planning by stealth undermines confidence and the good reputation of our planning system, how can we tighten up our system to avoid these planning mistakes being legitimatised?’
In response, Cllr Tucker informed that he had liaised with the Case Officer, who had provided him with the following information:-
The Case Officer had been in regular contact with the Developer since the start of this year. This case involved not only the District Council, but also the County Council due to the Highways implications of the Wall. Meetings had been held with the COP Lead, local Ward Member, Highways Officer and Case Officer to discuss the Wall. Of particular note was that the Wall was on Highways land and that a suitable alternative vehicle restraint barrier would be needed if the Wall was removed. The District Council was on the point of taking formal action when the application by the Developer was submitted.
It was not considered good practice to take formal action when a planning application was being determined as it could be considered to be pre-determining the application. In the event of the planning application being refused, then the Council would take steps to require the removal of the Wall.
With regard to the second part of the question concerning planning by stealth, Cllr Tucker advised that:
If a developer or homeowner decided to build something that did not benefit from planning permission, then they had a right to submit a retrospective planning application as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act. The Council must consider this planning application on its own merits against the same planning policies and considerations as a planning application which was submitted prior to any development being undertaken. However, if planning permission was refused and the development already existed, then the Council could (and did) take action to require the development to be removed. This could be delayed by the submission of an Appeal against either a planning decision or an Enforcement Notice at which point any timescales would be determined by the Planning Inspectorate.
Cllr Hodgson proceeded to ask a supplementary question relating to why the Council had not acted more sooner to resolve this matter. In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.5, since this question did not arise directly from his original reply, Cllr Tucker did not choose to respond to this supplementary.