/ Parish Council / Minutes / 2nd November 2017



CREECH ST MICHAEL PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes of the Meeting of the CSM PC held at 7pm on Thursday 2nd November 2017

in the CSM Baptist Church Hall

Present; S Hutchings (Chair), A Birch, P Brown, D Knight, G Lucas, K Reed, C Sampson and I Wright (Parish Councillors). Steve Altria (Clerk). 17 Members of the public attended.


17/187. Welcome. Ewen Huffman, Head Pastor at CSM Baptist Church and SH gave a welcome. SH explained that the purpose of this meeting is to give an opportunity to Parishioners to express their views on the Planning applications which have been received and the PC will then agree its views to be submitted to TDBC Planning after the PC meeting on 6th November.


17/188. Apologies for absence. PCllrs S Greenhalgh (Vice Chair) Y Guest and S Harris. Reasons given were accepted.

SCCllr D Fothergill.


17/189. Declarations of Interests. None stated.


17/190. Public speaking. 9 Members of the Public spoke on application 14/17/0033 Gladman’s;


(1). Brenda Brighton asked if the meeting agenda was on the Parish Website. AB confirmed it was. The Clerk advised that he had posted the notice on the village facebook site 3 times and SH said the PC had called an additional meeting to hear Parishioners views and it was on the village notice board. BB said she was disappointed that the PC hadn’t made a higher profile.BB also asked the PC if it would request that the application be determined by TDBC Planning Cttee and not Officers. SH confirmed he had already made the request.


(2). Paul Nation advised he was not on facebook and suggested the PC should have leafleted the village and used twitter.

PN passed over a letter from Wiveliscombe Civic Society which set out their objections to a similar development application from Gladman’s.


(3). Steve Wilson asked if CSM had met the requirements for housing.SH confirmed it had. SW also highlighted that CSM was narrow with virtual footways and no footpaths and a weak bridge so he was concerned with road safety. SW also shared his experience of when West View flooded he had helped clear building materials out of the ditch at the rear of the properties.


(4). Kathy Partridge asked for the letter (see 2 above) be read which the Clerk did. KP also advised that CSM and the newly built WM Schools are full and Heathfield is oversubscribed and that she was also concerned for habitat and wildlife; giving examples of deer and bats and the need for them to be able to move around.


(5). Ewen Huffman Spoke of his concern over the speed and volume of traffic and the safety of people. Even on the day two died he had seen driver’s texting mounting the pavement. PB responded advising that the PC had asked SCC for data. They have had counters in place so we asked for the traffic counts and forecasts so we can argue our case with evidence. WH asked that thought be given to protecting the land between CH and CSM. IW advised that land was not in the SLAA.


(6) Lynn Gates added that the SLAA March 2017 emphasised “the importance of settlement boundaries reducing sprawl and initial impact on the countryside.” LG also highlighted that there was a public meeting the following evening in the Village Hall 7pm 3.11.17. and that 400 notices had been delivered inviting villagers as well as facebook and website posts.

There is also an online petition on 38 degrees with 340+ signatures all of whom who had been asked to pass their views to TDBC.


(7) Andrew Hayes shared his experiences of the deficiencies of the North End Sewerage station as his brother lives next door and it already had problems coping.


(8). Paul Robinson highlighted that the two fields behind West View are visited by badgers and birds of prey. As the site was on a hill the development will impact on the setting and character of the village.


(9) Heather Nation advised that the doctors surgery was already over subscribed.


17/191. Planning Applications. The following application was considered and decision taken;

Date

Ref

Application

Outcome

18.10.17

14/17/0033

Langaller Lane, Creech St Michael. Outline planning application from Messrs Gladman’s, Developers with all matters reserved, except for access, for the erection of up to 200 No. dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) with vehicular access point.

The PC unanimously agreed to OBJECT.



CS agreed with the views expressed and drew parallel with the Larkfleet extension application which had been refused and suggested that the same objections apply. The proposed development lies outside settlement limits of Creech St Michael and would add to the existing housing already granted impacting on the scale and character of the village while adversely impacting on landscape views from the canal. The development is considered to be contrary to policies SP1, CP8 and DM2 of the Taunton Deane Core Strategy 2011- 2028 and policy SB1 of the draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan. CS also suggested that the site was not sustainable (as children have to walk on a public footpath through North End which is privately owned), that the site used to be a waste landfill and that the village had already as a minor rural centre had an additional 140 houses/12% growth (expected growth in MRC is 10% and total of 250 so CSM already has taken its share. Also that the school is over scribed. CS also stressed using our neighbourhood plan. IW agreed 78% of the Parish wanted the site protected.SH suggested that an Asset of Community Value be applied for.


IW agreeing with CS comments and quoting from Neighbourhood Plan advised that existing local green field space policies CP5, SP4, SS1 and MEF are of protection and allocation of local Greenfield Sites. This application is against these policies.

Also reference between communities there should be green field space (that this is in the core strategy and garden city (green field strategy) and this site is the last green space between CSM, the motorway and extended building works.

PB explained that TDBC have to produce a SLAA each year to demonstrate that it has a 5 year building supply. Sites appear as non developable, non developable and potentially developable sites. This site is shown as potentially developable. We should be saying that this site should not appear in the SLAA as it is sending a false message to the developer that TDBC will look favourably on the site being developed at some time. This is a strategic gap between the urban extension and CSM, it is important that this point is made; that there should be gaps. Also Ruishton has a green wedge allocation and we should ask for that at its next review to be extended to this site and those alongside the motorway.

AB highlighted that the site access was on a blind bend and on a hill and therefore safety was an issue. Buildings would dominate the village. AB stated his concern about flooding as when the brook rises the attenuation pond won’t work where it is positioned. The North End sewerage pumping station can’t cope with 200 more homes as it fails now in heavy rain.

KR agreed explaining that more building will add to the flooding of West View. IW and AB added the building would impact on the brook all along the village during heavy rainfall. The culverts were not designed to cope with the level of water.

SH proposed that the PC object as the proposed development lies outside the settlement limits of CSM and will impact on the scale and character of the village and that this development is contrary to policies SP1, CP8 and DM2 of the Taunton Deane Core strategy 2011-2028 and policy SB1 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan. He suggested that the response be written up by the Clerk based upon this and all the points made. This would be circulated with any further comments to be considered at the meeting on Monday (6.11.17) before a final response is sent to TDBC the following day.


The Clerk also to submit an application for ACV status on the site and to write separately to TDBC asking that it and adj fields to the Rec Park be removed from the SLAA as a strategic gap. These three decisions were agreed unanimously.


DK suggested that the village website be enhanced in the future so that residents could register their email address and then can be sent information on important items. AB advised that it could.


17/192. Planning Applications. The following application was considered and decision taken;

Date

Ref

Application

Outcome

23/10/17

14/17/0034

9 Mill Lane, CSM Erection of two storey extension to front.

The PC unanimously agreed to SUPPORT.


17/193. Planning Applications. The following application was considered and decision taken;

Date

Ref

Application

Outcome

23/10/17

14/17/0025

Kerrow House, Ham Road, CSM. Erection of two storey and single storey extension and erection of replacement garage (amended scheme to 14/16/0049).

The PC unanimously agreed to SUPPORT.


If you wish to comment on the Gladman's planning application to TDBC this can be done online. The ref is 14/17/0033 Click on the link;
http://www2.tauntondeane.gov.uk/asp/webpages/plan/PlAppDets.asp?casefullref=14/17/0033


The meeting was closed at 8pm.

Future Meetings;

The next scheduled Parish Council meeting will be held at 7pm on Monday 6th November (defib demo from 6.30pm).

The CSM Neighbourhood Plan Panel will meet on 16th November at 6.30pm

Meetings to be held in the Lower Cttee Room, CSM Village Hall.


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