/ Parish Council / Creech Neighbourhood Plan / Minutes 2nd May 2017



CREECH ST MICHAEL PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes of the Meeting of the CSM PC Neighbourhood Plan Panel
held at 6.30pm on Tuesday 2nd May 2017

                          in the Lower Committee Room of the Village Hall.

Present Co-opted Parishioners C Cudlip (Chair), F A'Court, A Hayes, A Oldham, J Read and J Scott, PCllr K Reed (Vice Chair), D Summerfield (WYG) and S Altria (Parish Clerk). PCllr P Brown. 1 Member of the public attended.

 

NP17/79. Welcome. CC welcomed everyone to the meeting and to guests Robert Taylor (Director, Persimmon Homes) and Julie Moore (TDBC Project Team Leader) in particular.  

 

NP17/80. To receive any apologies for absence. Co-opted Parishioners J McCarthy and L Crowley,      

J Birch (CCfS) and Keith Annis (Redrow Homes).

 

NP17/81. Declarations of Interests. No further declarations made.

 

NP17/82. Robert Taylor (Persimmon Homes) and Julie Moore (TDBC Project Team Leader)           RT apologised for the lack of attendance at the previously organised meeting and explained there had been confusion within the developers with the result that those due to attend had not. RT explained that the development had been delayed by 6 months due to discussions over high pressure Gas Mains which had necessitated discussions with the HSE and Wales and West Gas. This has been resolved with Wales and West Gas arranging to replace and move the pipes with the developers paying the cost. RT referring to the recent Garden City Conference confirmed that they would aim to embrace the Garden City principles even if the Governments designation had come late for the development. RT explained that he would share three outline options for discussion but this is in advance of the full consultation process not instead of and that the public and wider consultation would still take place. The potential development layout of the site had been discussed with Highways but not others - these were circulated but have yet to be worked through  e.g. traffic modelling had not yet been undertaken on each yet so the final plan is likely to be different again. Some surveys had taken place such as Ecology, Hydrology and Flood risk in order to get to this starting point. CC highlighted the various initiatives’ coming forward at the time and the obvious lack of their being joined up enough and he stressed the need for that to take place. RT highlighted that the plans shown had flexibility on where the schools and community centre would be sited and that they did not show green spaces at all. RT added that SCC are having problems at present advising the size of Schools they require so they are working on the basis of a flexible use design. The Clerk queried how this might work as children of different ages had different requirements of their classrooms i.e such as toilet heights and suggested that SCC need to be clearer in their instructions. RT agreed to provide a copy of the plans once discussion had taken place with TDBC and others.

A discussion took place on whether there was merit on the three PCs east of Taunton having a single briefing from the developers once the preferred layout had been indentified in addition to the normal consultation process. JM advised this would be considered. The Clerk asked if there was enough money in the project to cover all the infrastructure requirements given the multi million cost of moving the gas main and if there was a preference to relocate the A38 as unlike Monkton Heathfield which had a village to bypass the priority for the residents of the Parish was the 500 suggestion they had made and these were not included and each would have a cost to deliver. The Clerk then raised the long requested access from Hyde Lane onto the Relief Road and the need to include that in the traffic modelling.  JM highlighted that had not been lost sight of. AH asked what the ratio of affordable housing would be and would cost affect it? JM highlighted that CIL was under review at present and reconised that until it was known if the scheme was viable it was not clear. RT highlighted that Persimmon was fully signed upto building starter homes. AH highlighted the urgent need for footpath/cycleway along Hyde Lane and asked that this be addressed in the near future. RT explained that the footpath/cycleway would be addressed as part of the scheme but as developers they did not have the land in question under their control as a ransom strip was held on the footpath; in response KR pressed why it was not being deemed a permissive path but JM would not respond to the request. He also added the verge on the motorway bridge was not technically a footpath (though it is used as such). RT then advised that SCC may have to CPO the land and he was not sure if they had the appetite for that. The Clerk highlighted the importance the Parish put on it having this footpath and that urgent action needed to be taken. He asked what route SCC Highways want and in response RT drew on the plan (indicating the side of the cottages). The Clerk asked if the land owners be asked if they would sell now. CC asked if the CIL review would impact on the income the PC is likely to get. The Clerk responded as he had attended a Devon organised meeting of SW Parish Councils with key representatives from DCLG and all the PCs without exception had sent a clear message that they did not want CIL rates to be reduced stressing the greater value PC bring to local expenditure. He highlighted that the consultation was currently ongoing and papers could be read on the DCLG website so until later in their process we would not know what has been decided.

CC then asked what where the plans for the employment land are and highlighted that it should be accessible from the relief road not Hyde Lane. The Clerk added that we struggling to see the need for the employment land as there was little demand from the consultations undertaken and TDBC had decided to bring forward the Nexus site adjacent to the motorway. CC advised that unless the road is improved we don’t want Lorries accessing the employment land via Hyde Lane. AH and JM highlighted the potential for rat running via Hyde Lane if an access to the relief road was created. RT agreed that lorries should not use Hyde Lane to access the employment site. JM explained that having local employment close to new development was a priority for TDBC. The Clerk added that the consultation had shown that the a link from Hyde Lane onto the relief road was a high priority, the PC had asked for it 10 years ago and that as the whole village suffered from rat running the impact on the whole village needed to be considered not just on Hyde Lane; he added both could be achieved. Discussion then took place on their may being confusion and that once modelling was known views may differ. CC highlighted the need to address the footpath/cycleway and to have more information the next time we meet. JM agreed to look at the footpath/cycleway progress.

 

The Clerk asked if a route had been mapped out for the Park and Ride into Taunton yet, the preference in CSM being for the two Park and Rides to be linked with Buses going via CSM. RT this needs a specialist meeting and has yet to be worked through but was known about; he also highlighted that the delivery of the P&R would be early and it had yet to be decided who would be delivering this. FAC asked how much green space would be provided RT explained that there were two requirements (for Strategic Open Space and Incidental Open Space) and these would at least be met or exceeded depending on other requirements and these too had yet to be worked through. RT also highlighted that part of the site was at risk of flooding and with the gas main it was envisaged these would be left as open space.

DS explained he was from WYG and that he was working up the NH Plan and asked what was the time line. RT advised that the planning application submission target will be in 6 months time. DS will be setting out the community aspirations and policies giving you a very clear voice of the principles it wishes you to adopt. DS said we are keen to have our own evidence base and requested sight of all key documents. CC added the large number of projects and increasing numbers of houses is causing us difficulty to understand the full impact this will have on us all.  

CC then went though the enclosed PC slides in order to brief RT on the Parish’s stated needs. Discussion took place around some areas such as the need to address Road safety, rat running, footpaths and cycling, Housing looking like CSM not Taunton, Self builders, not having statement buildings on the key access points to the development, the employment land not being in a good place or being needed, Employers need for good broadband now, parking and travel to M5 time, the potential need for a J24a and the lack of demand for it from the principal authorities and the impact Nexus had on the HE plans for duelling the A303/A358; he asked if Nexus was now in the right place? AH asked if the proposed sea barrier across the mouth of the Rovers Tone and Parrott was going ahead?  FAC highlighted the merits of upgrading the River tow path.  CC asked that if RT needed any clarity as they worked through these he ask the Clerk in the first instance. RT asked for the plans to be returned as they are working documents only at this stage and not consultation documents.

NP17/83. Minutes - to approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 11th April 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.

NP17/84. Matters arising from the Minutes of the meeting held on 11th April 2017;

(1) NP16/40(6) Rec Park. It was noted that the professional advisors acting on behalf of the Owner of the field
adjacent to the Rec Park had replied advising that the agreement to meet her valuation fees should be unconditional to a sale and that the PC would consider this further request at its next meeting on the 6th March. In the event the PC decided to obtain preplanning advice before making a decision and this is now awaited. Carried forward.

(2) Banner. The banner had been produced and was used at the APM.

(3) NP17/74.A358/A303 Dueling. The last of the consultation events being held by Highways England on their proposal to upgrade the A303 /A358 is to be held on 8th May at the holiday inn 10-5pm.The PC will be determing its response at its next meeting.

(4) NP17/77 Youth Club.  The Clerk advised he had had been tasked by the PC at its last meeting to get quotes for the running and venue for an open access youth club and this was in hand (2) The Clerk advised he had yet to examine whether a further grant can be applied for from Groundwork's.

NP17/85. Next Steps. (1) DS advised he would be working on writing the plan in earnest now and would be feeding part though for review by the group rather than building it up for meetings. These will need prompt attention and input. DS advised he would explain his proposal at a future meeting.

(2) Draft West Monkton NH Plan. the Clerk advised the had read through their draft plan and proposed we support. This was agreed. The Clerk advised he had indentified a large number of actions in a report he had circulated to panel members and would now work with DS to either ensure these are in hand or if appropriate, brought to a future panel meeting for consideration. Action. It was agreed to recommend to the PC that it support the WM draft NH plan.

(3).SCC Councillor David Fothergill had been invited to the next meeting. A new TDBC Pitch strategy was expected soon and this would be discussed along with action emerging from WM NH Plan and DS advices.

NP17/86. Date of Next Meeting. The next Meeting is 18th May at 6.30pm in the lower CSM VH Cttee room.

The meeting closed at 9.30pm.

 

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