/ Parish Council / Creech Neighbourhood Plan / Minutes 20th February 2018




CREECH ST MICHAEL PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes of the Meeting of the CSM PC Neighbourhood Plan Panel
held at 7.00pm on Tuesday 20
th February 2018

in the Lower Committee Room of the Village Hall.

Present Co-opted Parishioners C Cudlip (Chair), F A'Court, L Crowley, A Hayes, A Oldham and J Read.

PCllr K Reed (Vice Chair), S Coles (WYG) and S Altria (Parish Clerk). No Members of the public attended.


NP18/1. To receive any apologies for absence. Co-opted Parishioners J Birch, J Scott and J McCarthy. PCllr P Brown.


NP18/2. Declarations of Interests. No additional declarations were made.


NP18/3. Minutes - to approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 16th November 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.


NP18/4. Matters arising from the Minutes of the meeting held on 16th November 2017.

The Clerk advised that all items arising were covered by agenda items with the exception of item NP17/138 RofW T10/23 Langaller (use of tunnel under M5) as he hadn’t written to HE and the adjacent landowners as he had since been advised SCC Highways wished to be involved in taking this matter forward and he was waiting on their advices.


NP18/5. Reg 14 Consultation Feedback on draft plan. CC and the Clerk advised that in preparation for the consultation (Period 8TH DECEMBER 2017 – 2ND FEBRUARY 2018) all papers were put on and remain on the Village website www.creechstmichael.net/NHP/ . 190 residents of the Parish who registered their email address and previously asked to be kept informed of NH Plan Issues, all employers in the Parish, everyone who had submitted a planning application in the Parish in the year prior and all those on the statutory and other Consultees listing identified by TDBC were all sent an emailed notice on the consultation making them aware of the consultation and how to respond. Public consultation events were then held on Friday 8th (2-6pm) and Saturday 9th December (9.30am-12 noon) in the lower Cttee room at CSM Village Hall and following these standing (unmanned) displays were also positioned in the Village Hall entrance and the Baptist Church Hall during the 2 month consultation period. The Creech St Michael Facebook site which has 1067 followers were reminded daily the week before and during the public consultation that the consultation was and is taking place with reminders then sent periodically and a notice put on the Village Website. Parish Council meeting minutes also stated consultation arrangement/dates-these are put in 5 notice boards across the Parish.


SC presented his report on the Sect 14 consultation feedback on NH Plan v5 (circulated previously). He explained that these detail the comments received and WYGs recommendation against each. He advised that there were not a significant number of consultation responses – which reflects the experience at the two day public consultation event held. This was interpreted, despite natural inertia, as the proposals having broad support. Indeed most of the responses received incl statutory bodies are supportive – though it was noted that Nat England had still to respond. The most detailed response comes from Gladman. Persimmons are supportive and TDBC have produced a list of points to consider (many restated from earlier points made at meetings).


These were considered and apart from requesting a few amendments (e.g. the Maypole PH is in CSM) the report was noted. In order to give the PCllrs chance to read ahead of the PC 5th March meeting please (so the PC can “sign these off”) at its 5th March meeting he would circulate now along with a request to receive comments ahead of the PC meeting. This will also be give the panel more time to reflect too. WYG suggested and the Panel supported that the plan has some stronger wording to reflect that CSM is planning positively for growth i.e. that the urban development is going to take place and therefore that the plan does not seek to designate further land for housing and that we welcome the new community. It was noted that WYG plan to issue a v6 plan 12th March.

SC explained that WYG are currently writing the “green wedge policy” the PC agreed to at its last meeting. This will be with the PC for its 5th March meeting. It was agreed the Panel and PC have a week to read and comment into the Clerk ahead of the 12th March so then we can undertake a further (est 3 week ) consultation on this (by email/facebook/website).The aim is to get feedback to the PC for its 8th April meeting in time so that approval can be considered to instruct TDBC to undertake the Sect 15 formal consultation. It was noted that once sect 15 consultation commences we can't make any changes so that version will have the pictures and plans taken in it.


Finally it was noted that there was a suggestion of having a footpath/cycleway along the river to Hankridge and this was considered and thought to have merit. Action. CC to send onto WYG the photograph taken at the consultation event.


NP18/6. The Strategic Env Assessment (SEA) and Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA). SC advised that the Strategic Env Assessment (SEA) and Habitat Regulation Assessments (HRA) are underway. TDBC consultants (at TDBC cost) are doing these and have advised that in their opinion a full environmental assessment is not required. Responses from Historic England, Natural England and Env Agency are still needed and are expected at the end of the month.


NP18/7. Ruishton PC NH Plan Panel. The Clerk advised he and the PC Chair Simon Hutchings had met with Ruishton PC NH Plan Panel on the 30th Jan. CC was due to attend but unfortunately was ill. The Clerk debriefed the Panel using the notes made (circulated previously and now on CSM website). There was agreement to continue to work together, that our two Parishes shared the same problems and had the same priorities (traffic volumes and road safety) and it was agreed that Lee Crowley (Cycling) and Fred A’Court (Footpaths) meet with Ruishton counterparts to think about were routes across the parishes should be.


NP18/8. Next steps. See item 18/5 and 18/6 above. It was noted that the CSM Annual Parish meeting is to take place on April 27th Friday and it was agreed that a NH Plan progress update to the meeting was required.





NP18/9. Development of a draft Community Action Plan. The Clerk advised that at the Feb PC meeting it had agreed to ask if the NH Plan Panel would draft a CAP. This request was considered, agreed to and it was decided substantive time should be set aside at a future meeting to undertake this. It was agreed that WYG makes clear in the Plan that the CAP is stated as high level aspirations to be developed and funds allocated later rather than a finalised CAP be included in the NH Plan.


NP18/10. Highways. The clerk advised;

(1) Highway Traffic volumes. The results of traffic counts done in Sept by Highways England Ltd had been previously circulated. The figures show that the traffic volumes in the Village are extremely high - similar to the A361 (Thornfalcon to Street Rd) which does not have the housing, narrow or no footpaths, bridges, is much wider etc.

(2) A358/A303 consultation. A period of public consultation is underway by Highways England Ltd until the 27th Feb with a number of public consultation events being held locally (the last at Ruishton VHall on 21st Feb 2pm-5.30pm). In addition Parish Councils were offered (closed) meetings in order to enable Cllrs to gain a stronger understanding about the proposals and CSM met HE ltd on 12th Feb. HE explained the three routes they are consulting on (pink, blue and orange) and the merits and costs of each. They explained responses based on hybrids would also be accepted. After quizzing HE for over an hour during which the PC considered each option. In acknowledging SCC’s reasoning and preference for wanting the A303 (traffic) to come upto Taunton it felt there should also be an acknowledgement that the decision will impact on communities to the east of Taunton including Creech St Michael. The Parish Council therefore agreed to seek mitigation measures in the Village being put in place ahead of any works starting. The Parish Council then agreed its preferred route (a hybrid option) as the pink route from junction C (Thornfalcon) to junction B/D with a spur to J25 junction but with the last section (that from B/D joining the motorway with a full access junction south of Killams shown as F) following the orange route. This route takes the most traffic from Henlade, gives it a bypass and removes the lorry traffic from Nexus. It was also agreed with HE Ltd that a “walk though” of the village to examine the various safety issues and to seek mitigation ahead of works commencing. The PC also decided to take the opportunity to highlight that the Parish suffers from poor screening of the existing M5 motorway and to ask for improvements to be made.

(3) Creech Castle Junction Upgrade. SCC Highways had presented their plans to upgrade the junction to PCllrs on the 5th Feb. SCC having considered 5 options prefer a scheme which is essentially an enhancement of the existing arrangements with additional lanes and better cycle and pedestrian crossings. It was noted that there would be no right turn from Town into Bridgwater Rd (towards Hamilton Rd), an additional lane along the Toneway, two lanes when turning left from West Monkton towards Hankridge, a longer waiting lane for those turning right from Hankridge when travelling towards West Monkton and three lanes in Bridgwater Road (from Hamilton Rd direction) with the turn left slip along the Toneway towards Taunton removed. Also that construction is likely to take place at the same time as the M5 J25 upgrade.

The focus of PCllrs responses to SCC was again on the need for safety improvement works being put in place in CSM ahead of the works starting. It was accepted that 2 years of disruption will further increase rat running between the A38 and A358 as drivers seek to avoid the works. SCC had agreed to walk through the village to understand the difficulties, to consider what could be done and agreed to support the PC in principal to develop a village traffic management plan (though no commitment on the availability of resources had been given). A discussion was held on the safety of cyclists and pedestrians and the need for a crossing on the A38 at Bathpool, the impact on the Sainsbury roundabout and where traffic may be displaced from.

(4) M5 J25 Junction Upgrade. SCC Regulation Ctte was due to consider a Planning application for the scheme but it was withdrawn. It is anticipated that the scheme will now be resubmitted for a future meeting.

(5) Safe route to School along Hyde Lane. The route and funding has now been secured and agreement reached by SCC Highways with Persimmon to proceed ahead of development. The path would be on the north side of Hyde Lane upto the Cottages and would then route beside and behind them.

(6) Hyde Lane Crossing. Three options had been considered by the PC who had decided to opt for a crossing immediately outside the School entrance.

(7) Hollingsworth Park Estate Speed calming. A site meeting had been held with SCC Highways and it had been accepted that a problem existed. PCllrs have asked for a 20mph speed limit from the other side of the motorway bridge coming into the Village ( as a minimum from the Park to the School with remainder 30mph if not) along with better warning signs. A request for the crossing point to be made more prominent had been made along with a request for costing to the PC for a gateway and 3 speed humps for decision. These are expected at the end of the month.


NP18/11. Planning. The clerk advised;

(1) Updates on Gladman’s Application (14/17/0033, to build 200 houses on the land off Langaller Road). TDBC planning has yet to consider or list the application. A similar application by Gladman at Rockwell Green in Wellington had gone to appeal last week but on the second day Gladman had introduced new evidence and the Inspector decided to postpone the appeal for three months in order that it can be properly considered.

(2) TDBC Nexus Employment site. TDBC had granted itself a Local Development Order (LDO) and the site has been sold so the developer is now able to proceed.

(3) Planning Application 48/17/0043 Employment development in West Monkton (village side of Western Relief Road). This now looks set to be granted following mitigation works incl limiting loading hours.

(4) Planning Application 14/17/0020 Walford Cross (former Langdon’s site). This had now been granted following agreement to mitigation works. It was noted that when it was occupied by Langdon’s traffic volumes were higher than at present so no objection from Highways had been made.


NP18/12. Open Access Youth Club. The Clerk explained that no decision to proceed had yet been taken by the PC. The PC has a difficult budget and whilst some funds were being set aside this was unlikely to fully fund. As a result he had submitted a grant request for funding. Initial talks with a potential provider had come to nothing as they had not got enough resources until at least October. As a result he had asked the SCC Youth Service to place an advert and he envisaged interested parties would be invited to explain their offer to a panel of Cllrs shortly, following which a decision would be made on how to proceed, if at all. A discussion took place on the Former Engine shed being used for meetings and the works that may be required and how they might be funded.


NP18/13. Date of Next Meeting. It was agreed WYG would consider and advise shortly when a further meeting would best be held.


The meeting closed at 9.55pm.

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