/ Parish Council / Creech Neighbourhood Plan / Minutes 16th November 2017




CREECH ST MICHAEL PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes of the Meeting of the CSM PC Neighbourhood Plan Panel
held at 6.30pm on Thursday 16
th November 2017

in the Lower Committee Room of the Village Hall.

Present Co-opted Parishioners C Cudlip (Chair), F A'Court, L Crowley, A Hayes, J Read and J Scott, PCllrs K Reed (Vice Chair) and P Brown, S Coles (WYG) and S Altria (Parish Clerk). One Member of the public also attended.


NP17/130. To receive any apologies for absence. Co-opted Parishioners J Birch, J McCarthy, A Oldham.


NP17/131. Declarations of Interests. No additional declarations were made.


NP17/132. Minutes - to approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 5th October 2017. (These had been previously circulated to Panel Members). These were agreed without any amendments being made. The minutes were then signed and dated by the Chair as an accurate record of the meeting.


NP17/133. Matters arising from the Minutes of the meeting held on 5th October 2017.

The Clerk advised that all items arising were covered by agenda items.


NP17/134. CSM NH Draft Plan (V4) Review/ Sect 14 Consultation and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

At the joint meeting with the Parish Council on the 16th October the PC comments were made to WYG on v4 draft. The need for additional policies, maps, pictures as well is reconised and its was agreed to ask TDBC (Ann Rhodes) to review V4 and to develop V5 simultaneously to avoid delay.


A meeting took place on 31st October with AR. Overall AR was positive and had made a number of recommendations for improvement and enhancement of the plan which she had promised to document. As this had just been received an hour before the meeting the Clerk circulated hard copies in the meeting along with a request to read after the meeting.


The Clerk advised that the PC at their meeting on 6th Nov had commissioned WYG to continue with producing v5 and to undertake the Sect 14 consultation.


SC highlighted AR support for the concept of a strategic gap and the need to be able to define the Parishes distinctiveness. FA’C offered to write this and this was agreed. CC highlighted when the motorway was built its was in open countryside away from Towns. Taunton had since developed out to and towards the motorway. PB explained that is why TDBC has a Ruishton Green Wedge policy and he suggested that as the urban expansion alongside the motorway develops that should be extended further to CSM.


CC also highlighted the need to consider protecting the village boundaries as defined in TDBC’s core strategy

and making reference to this by way of maps and narrative in the plan.

Action. CC offered to organise a review of the photographs taken in order to indentify which are to be used.


SC highlighted that there was a need to develop a condition statement (how does the plan meet the requirements) and Consultation Statement (how have the plans evolved/the story to date). TDBC will also need to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).It was agreed that this should be done simultaneously alongside the Sect 14 consultation with statutory Consultees and Parishioners as it is unlikely to be an big issue in CSM as the plan does not seek to allocate land for development and as this would minimise the project timeline.


A discussion took place about the Sect 14 consultation. It was agreed that an extended 8 week consultation would commence starting with a public sessions on 8th (2-6pm) and sat 9th Dec (9.30am to 12 noon) in the village Hall Ctte Room to coincide with the CM café being held in the Hall. A static display will also be mounted in the Hall and Cttee room as well for the 2 months along with feedback sheets which would be available on the Village website. The facebook site, notice boards and website would be used to publicise the consultation. Feedback forms would also be available in the Hall foyer so accessible at all times.

Simultaneously the Clerk would write to the statutory Consultees and pass responses to WYG for analysis and report.

Action. WYG to advise at the next meeting how best to develop the community action plans.

NP17/135. TDBC Pitch Strategy. The Clerk advised that he had raised concerns with AR at the meeting on 31st October. The Clerk advised of the lack of a response to the points raised by CSM before adopting the policy and had asked where this now left us. He advised he will be following up with a letter detailing the PC concerns’ over the Parish being designated part of Taunton, that a move to a facilitator from provider will increase cost to families, a lack of engagement with PC’s in the process and that a wider range of sports than that considered. The Clerk had also asked for TDBC other policies (it was noted that these had not been reviewed over many a year) and for a estimate of the green space to be allocated to CSM within the urban extension area (pitches/parks/play/other sports/community use space/grass).


.

NP17/136. Highways.

1) Hyde Lane Link to WM Relief Road. PB highlighted that he had raised with PCllrs whether this was a good idea but had been informed that both the consultation response and the PC had desired an access. The PC views this access as principally used by those in the village or those needing to access the village rather than the ‘rat runners’ that typically go through the village using St Michaels Road. As a result Villagers journeys would be extended and in all probability have to use Hyde Lane passing the School. The PC also wished the route to remain in order to provide a means of access during periods of flooding. PC suggested and it was agreed that the plan reflect the “provision of access from Hyde Lane to WMRR when satisfactory traffic management measures are in place in Hyde Lane as part of the village traffic management plan.”


2) Highway Traffic Volumes. PB advised that he had a meeting with SCC Highways on Thursday 23rd to discuss current and potential future traffic volumes in the village.

3) A358/A303 duelling. The Clerk explained that Highways England Ltd have taken the decision that following further review, to consult again on the whole route from early 2018. HE intend to present a number of options for consideration and have widened the scope of the consultation to the whole route meaning that they need more time to work on the consultation and to prepare.

The Clerk advised that the consequence of this is that the scheme will now, given the timing of this consultation and "reconsideration of the whole route", mean H.E will find it virtually impossible to complete all necessary stages in time to put a "spade in the ground" by their given deadline of 2020. There is likely now to be a year's delay in the A358 Expressway programme as a result of the re-consultation, and this will push the project's construction into the period of the Government's next Road Investment Strategy, 2020-2025 when we know that the A303 Southfields to the A30 is already included.

He also highlighted that the Government stated budget was £2 billion in 2015-2020 RIS for the whole 'corridor' covering the A303/A358 work, of which around £500 million was going on the A358. Given the likely costs of the Stonehenge Tunnel announced their simply isn’t enough.


Finally at the TDBC Planning meeting to consider Nexus held on 14th Nov both TDBC (John Williams) and SCC Highways advised verbally that they had now been given informally the green light to go ahead with their proposed schemes by HE. With no Henlade bypass in place the additional traffic would need to route through Henlade increasing the likelihood of further Rat running in CSM.


As a result the Clerk suggested that HE had increased the likelihood of not bringing the A303 to Taunton as planned but route now through the Blackdowns AONB leaving SCC to resolve the need for a Henlade bypass (presumably seeking this in return for allowing further house building in Ruishton) and TDBC and SCC without the benefits they had sought.

(Clerks note: SCC stated reasons are 21,400 jobs/£41.6bn boost to the economy (GVA)/ £1.9bn in transport benefits from reduced journey times/Improve transport resilience to cope with incidents and during flooding/Save over 1800 fatal or serious casualties over 60 years/Reduce carbon emissions by 9% and not going through the Blackdowns AONB).

4) M5 J25. The Junction 25 redevelopment is being led by S.C.C. Currently the scheme is under "direction" by Highways England. However the TDBC Planning Cttee 14th Nov was advised by an S.C.C. highways officer that the stay is due to be lifted and the planning application would be before the planning committee in late January/beginning of February. .

5) Hollingsworth Park. A meeting with SCC Highways attended by SH, PB, AB, a local resident and the Clerk

was held on 14th Nov. This had been extremely positive and SCC had acknowledged that there is a speeding problem and there was a need to take action; recommending an extended 30 mph zone, signing changes and speed humps. A plan of proposed changes for comment will be forthcoming in a few weeks.


NP17/137. Planning.

1) Gladman application for 200 houses off Langaller (14/17/0033). The Parish Council had held an additional PC meeting to consider this application which had been attended by 17 members of the public on 2nd Nov. A decision was taken to unanimously object to the application and this was reconfirmed at the scheduled meeting on 6th Nov. A detailed letter setting out the Councils extensive objections had been sent. A public meeting had been held attended by 130 on 3rd November and a campaign to encourage objections as well as a petition have been organised by Parishioners. The application will be held at a future planning Cttee meeting (either 6th Dec, 3rd or 17th Jan). The PC had also decided to write to TDBC asking for the SHLAA to be amended at its next review to exclude this site and to apply for ACV status.


2) TDBC Nexus Employment site. The TDBC Scrutiny Committee examined the Local Development Order (LDO.) for the NEXUS business park on 14th Nov 2017. The committee passed the LDO and it will be decided by full council on 12th Dec.

One Councillor stated that there was an anomaly in the actual area which can be used to build upon. It is not 25 hectares as originally stated but 17.3 hectares. That alters the equation as to the number of jobs possible. Originally 3000 to 4000 Under the "new" site size that figure could now be as low as 1800.





Also raised was the jump in land prices once the LDO. is adopted, from £x hectares at agricultural prices to £x hectares at many multiples with planning permission. A question asked but not answered was should the land owners decide to sell the land to another developer, who would gain from the massive increase in value? As the development is dependant on M5 J25 Please see item NP17/136 (4) above.


3) Erection of 4 No. commercial buildings for Class B1/B8 usage, with amenities, on land adjacent to the A38 off Hardys Road, Monkton Heathfield (App 48/17/0043 WM village side of Western Relief Road) .The Clerk drew the panels attention to this application which whilst in West Monkton Parish was for employment rather than housing and demonstrated that perhaps that there was a demand for the employment land to be developed. It was noted that the extension to B8 (warehousing) rather than just B1 (Office) would generate more traffic both in terms of deliveries and outputs. This was likely given the issues being faced to increase the amount of rat running and therefore CSM should express its concern.


4) Walford Cross (14/17/0020 former Langdon’s site). The Clerk advised that the application had yet been determined but the applicant had now submitted a highways report and a response to the Consultees objections. With regard to the response to the Consultees objections none of the points made would change the PC views which remain as submitted. (Clerks note; PC objects on the grounds of over development, concerns over parking, scale and proximity of the large single unit to the nearby domestic house as this will cause an unreasonable loss of amenity and cause noise problems, the removal of barriers, banking and trees with TPOs and impact on flora, fauna, wildlife and the sites ecology, the septic tank under the site and for increasing surface water run off and drainage problems downstream).


PB had noted in the Highway report that they suggest the amount of traffic is inconsequential and the development should proceed without them making any contribution to improvements, dismissing the growth in a.m. peak movements of 14 vehicles into/out of the site as slight but current levels are 45 so it is actually an increase of a third. Given that there have been 10 accidents at Walford cross over the last 5 years (details in the report) anything which may increase the likelihood of accidents should be looked at with caution.  The consultants actually suggest improvements that could be made to white lining at Walford Cross but that SCC should pay.  It was agreed to say that as the applicant had identified the need for the improvements (they suggested white lining at Walford Cross) , bearing in mind the accident record that they should meet the cost of doing so as their development will be adding more turning movements at the A38 junction.   


NP17/138. Footpaths/RofW.

1) Hyde Lane Safe route to School. Whilst agreement had been achieved between Persimmon and SCC on providing a foot/cycleway as a safe route to school (M/bridge to Hyde Lane Cottages) on a Hyde Lane footpath the developers are seeking to bring this forward as part of the WM Urban development plans. SCC Highways (Dan Mawer) had advised that they are meeting with the Regional Director for Persimmon in 3 weeks time (i.e early Dec). PCllrs had pressed SCC Highways to ensure the footpath is lit. SCC Highways anticipate seeing design by the end of the year.

Action. The Clerk to press TDBC (JM) for progress on the footway ahead of wider development and that it be lit (Note from Clerk done 15.11.17).


2) Hyde Lane Crossing. Alyn Jones of SCC Development Engineering Economic and Community Infrastructure Operations has advised that the options report will be available at the end of November.


3) RofW T10/23 Langaller. 3) RofW T10/23 Langaller. FA’C explained that he had found a tunnel under the motorway which was blocked up but could connect the east and west footpaths of T10/23 at Langaller. He suggested that it was strange that the RofW doesn’t actually go through the tunnel and that there are a number of issues, including the work needed to achieve an opening, immediately either side of it  and safety issues concerning exiting the footpath onto the Langaller Road before it could be used. It is understood that it is primarily a culvert but at the time of the motorway being built the authorities suggested to local farmers who had land on either side that it may be utilised to move stock from one side to the other. In practice it has not been used. The landowners on the village side who may benefit from rights to use the tunnel include Mr Loxton and the Estate of the Late Mrs Duddridge and on the Monkton Heathfield side the landowners who may benefit would be the estate of the Late Mrs Duddridge and another unknown owner (triangle field). It was recognised that if HE and local farmers agree and it is physically capable of such use it could be brought into use and while it will take time why would HE refuse when the local farmers already have agreement/use? The Clerk advised he will write to HE and the adjacent landowners.


NP17/139. Open Access Youth Club.

PCllrs KR and CS, Judith Hodge and the Clerk had met with Somerset Rural Youth Project on 9th November. SRYP have been asked to formally provide a proposal to run a club one evening a week before the dec PC meeting for consideration. The Childrens Centre is no longer available to use and the Village Hall is fully used evenings mid week. CS suggested that the old engine house at the Rec Park could be utilised to provide a dedicated youth centre space. Judith Hodge offered a contribution on beheld of Creech News towards adaptation costs.


NP17/140. Date of Next Meetings. No date was fixed but to be held in Jan once Part 14 consultation results are received.

The meeting closed at 9.50pm.

Steve Altria, Clerk to Creech St Michael Parish Council. Tel 01823 666295. Email clerk@creechstmichael.net