/ Parish Council / Creech Neighbourhood Plan / Minutes 20th July 2017


Minutes of the Meeting of the CSM PC Neighbourhood Plan Panel
held at 6.30pm on Thursday 20th July 2017

in the Lower Committee Room of the Village Hall.

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

NP17/104. Welcome. CC welcomed Simon Coles to the meeting. SC explained that Darren Summerfield had left WYG and that he would directly working with the panel in future.

NP17/105. To receive any apologies for absence. PCllr P Brown and Co-opted Parishioners F A'Court, J Birch, J McCarthy and A Oldham.

NP17/106. Declarations of Interests. KR declared an interest as a house owner in the Parish.

NP17/107. Minutes - to approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 15th June 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.

NP17/108. Matters arising from the Minutes of the meeting held on 15th June 2017.

The Clerk advised;

(1) NP16/40(6) Rec Park. SCC Highways had asked for plans and more information before giving preplanning advice. The PC have yet to decide if it will continue with this.

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

(3) NP17/93. TDBC Pitch Strategy. The Parish Council had supported the Panel points on the strategy and these have now been submitted to TDBC and had been advised that the new strategy will be considered by the Community Scrutiny and then Full Council in October. Feedback will be requested and it was noted if any points were not included in the strategy then they should be in the CSM NH Plan.

(4) NP17/94. Housing Needs Survey. The Clerk advised that TDBC had now produced the survey form which addressed the points that had been raised on the draft. Dates where discussed and it was agreed to ask for the survey to be available on line soonest and to be mailed to all houses for the last week in august and first in sept with a deadline of 10th. This would give TDBC two weeks to analysis the results and WYG a week to include in the Draft NH Plan before it goes to the October PC meeting. If this was not sufficient we would ask for the survey to be done in august. The Clerk to a write short article for the Creech News and will arrange for the survey to be posted on the website and facebook.

NP17/109. CSM NH Draft Plan V2 Review.

DS had circulated a second alliteration of the draft plan two weeks ahead of the meeting and had asked for comments ahead of or at the meeting. These had been sent through to SC as received. How best to get developers to build houses with character and individuality and the broadband speed that can be reasonably expected [30mbps] and ensuring its availability on possession were discussed. It is noted that the dates and timescales are yet to be added to the plan and CC and SH are to produce a foreward before the end of august.

A discussion took place on the need to further protect the village from further housing estates. SC advised that the village was already protected as the 2016 Site Allocation and Dev Man Plan confirmed the village settlement limits and this should mean applications outside are refused. Areas such as Rights of Way, Flood Zone and those designated as Assets of Community Value (CSM has six of these) also provide protection. SC suggested considering protecting the green infrastructure as this is important and the merits of having an ecological survey to assist gaining protection for the wildlife and countryside discussed and it was agreed to suggest the PC undertake a survey. The importance of getting landowners support was reconised. It was agreed that SC would speak to Ann Rhodes, TDBC about the level of protection needed in the plan for the village and the extent that design detail that should be demanded of the developers to get diversity and individuality. Subject to her response it was reconised a subsequent letter to planners may be required to confirm advices obtained. The draft was then agreed subject to the points agreed.

Action. SC to update plan and speak to Ann Rhodes, TDBC about protection, SH and CC to provide a foreward before august. The Clerk to put holding an ecology survey to PC for a decision.

NP17/110. Next Steps. SC explained the next steps are to amend the v2 draft as agreed, to undertake the Housing Needs survey, for SC to speak to Ann Rhodes, TDBC and to ensure that everyone is informed of our responsibilities ahead so we can budget, plan ahead and are all aligned. The aim now is to provide the draft plan to the PC for its October meeting.

NP17/111. Date of Next Meeting. The next Meeting is to be held on Thursday 5th October at 6.30pm in the lower CSM VH Cttee room.

NP17/112. TDBC Garden Town Exhibition. The Clerk reported that Simon Hutchings (PC Chair) and himself had attended the recent TDBC exhibition and consultation held in the Orchard Centre, Taunton. The purpose of the holding of this week long event was unclear other than to make residents aware of the status. Having seen the materials used/issued and having discussed with officers present no additional green space or fields are identified as being planned for CSM. He drew attention to a difference between the materials used by TDBC and that issued by Persimmon; as the former showed in West Monkton a "Country Park" whilst the Persimmon Information Boards do not.

Action. The Clerk to ask Julie Moore, TDBC about the country park and the proposed green space in CSM.

NP17/113. Persimmon exhibition at the BACH Hall, West Monkton

The Clerk advised Persimmon had asked the Parish Council (we hadn't had a Neighbourhood Plan panel since) for feedback on the consultation. He had advised that the PC felt that the consultation would have attracted phase 1 residents and WM villagers and that it needed to be held in CSM in order to be of value to CSM residents. It was also noted that the Panels views which had been given previously had not been reflected in the consultation materials. Other issues such as the A38 remaining on its alignment in order to ensure available infrastructure funds provide for a programme of safety works in CSM Village as a priority, vehicler access from Hyde Lane, a lack of quality green space, not being clear with plans for schools (needs must be better identified) and it still being named the WM Urban Development despite now being in CSM. The PC don’t see the need for the employment parks which apart from small starter units should be planned as part of the overall development from the outset, particularly given the application received (see item NP17/114 (4) below).

Positive feedback had been given regarding the path along Hyde Lane. CC explained that he had attended and SCC had advised that there no way they would allow vehicle access from the relief road onto Hyde Lane and that vehicler access to the employment areas would be from the relief road. A discussion took place on the impact of the bus gate siting.

NP17/114. Highways.

1) Hyde Lane Safe route to School. CC reported that agreement had now 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.

2) A358/A303 duelling. As more information had become available and with Highways England having extended the deadline the Clerk advised that the PC had written a further letter to HE. Whilst the PC remains’ supportive of the principle of a new high quality duel carriageway expressway from London to Taunton in order to bring economic benefits to Somerset, to provide more reliable journey times, improve safety and to avoid routing the road through the Blackdowns AONB there is also an obvious need to address the traffic on the A358 through Henlade/Ruishton and provide access to Nexus, the Strategic Employment site. The PC had stated;

  • All organisations involved need to be working far closer together and that each project needs to be planned and developed within an overall programme of works.

  • Local communities, including the Council also need to be more involved.

  • The PC’s first reply had stated its priority was for safety improvement in the Village to be integral to the scheme. Despite additional Q&A sessions being offered no reference was made or even an acknowledgement of the highway problems that exist in the Parish were made by HE.

  • The PC had become aware that in deciding to consult on one option HE, had suppressed consulting on several other options which would remove more traffic from Henlade. This it felt was a poor decision which invalidated the consultation process and cost them the trust and confidence of affected communities.

  • The PC understood from HE representatives that the reason a J25a solution was proposed was that with the Nexus Employment site the J25 junction could not cope with the increased traffic volume and that the junction is not capable of even further improvement.

  • Asked why a larger further enhanced J25 roundabout with a Henlade Bypass was not being proposed.

  • If a J25a is required the issue of removing constantly queuing traffic on the A358 in Henlade and providing access to Nexus MUST also be dealt with.

  • Asked for the needs of local people being able to get around after the new expressway is built are met.

  • Advocated the merit of a J24a at Walford Cross utilising the existing bridge in order to reduce traffic at J25

  • Asked what the benefit was described in the Highways England booklet “providing major development opportunities to the south of Taunton” meant. And expressed its opinion that the Council does not support further development to the huge amount already planned.

3) M5 J25 upgrade planning application. The Clerk reported that the scheme was now in for planning but that SCC had omitted to consult CSM PC. SCC had apologised and arranged to make a presentation to the PC at its next full meeting on monday 4th September at 7pm. Given the consultation timescales the PC had advised SCC that;

  • The Scheme does not address the issue of ‘rat running’ through CSM and the need for a programme of safety works in the village.

  • There was no quantified projection of what traffic growth through Creech or the effect of the HE proposal for the duelling of the A358/A303.

  • The scheme appears to be developed in isolation of the HE A303/358 duelling scheme.

  • Taken together the Scheme does not deal adequately with the Henlade traffic.

  • The PC feels the lorry access for the Nexus Employment Site must be off the HE duelled A303/358 road.

  • The PC is not convinced with the HE A303/358 at J25 and the large number of large development sites in Taunton area even with the upgraded J25 that it will be sufficient for the volume of traffic.

  • Please to see that the Creech Castle Junction is to be upgraded.

  • That their needs to be a widely consulted upon and agreed programme for all the number of infrastructure schemes in the area-they can't all be built at the same time.

NP17/115. Walford Cross Depot - Proposed Erection of 11 no light industrial units (in 2 No building). Class B1/B8 usage (Planning App No 14/17/0020). Concern expressed that the larger single building was close to a residential house and that trees are to be removed (thought to have TPO) on. The terrace building would replace the need for additional employment land becoming available in the urban dev area. Also noted was Charlton Road residents concern over adding to flooding.

NP17/116. Nexus, Strategic employment site. The Clerk advised TDBC have consulted the PC on submitting an LDO to proceed with Nexus. It is clear that TDBC are keen to go ahead with Nexus. It was thought that TDBC are looking to take advantage of the new duelled road to get employment opportunities locally by allocating land. In discussion it seemed premature as the access has not yet been agreed and that the LDO would remove the planning process consultation. It was also identified that Nexus would provide another reason to remove the need for the employment land which are the wrong size and in the wrong place (within the urban development area) so should seek to remove this allocation from the outset.

We also need to restate the need for Highway safety works in CSM.

NP17/117. Website. It was noted that the latest panel minutes were not on the website. The Clerk advised he had requested that it be posted and he would ensure it was updated.

The meeting closed at 9. 40pm.

The next Meeting is to be held on Thursday 5th October at 6.30pm in the lower CSM VH Cttee room.

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