/ Parish Council / Creech Neighbourhood Plan / Minutes 6th October 2016



Minutes of the Meeting of the CSM PC Neighbourhood Plan Panel

held at 7pm on Thursday 6th October 2016

in the Lower Committee Room of the Village Hall.

Present PCllrs I Wright (Chair) and K Reed. Co-opted Parishioners C Cudlip, Jackie Scott and J Birch (CCfS) and Steve Altria (Parish Clerk). No Parishioners attended.


NP16/51. Welcome.  Cllr Wright welcomed everyone to the meeting.


NP16/52. To receive any apologies for absence.  L Gates (Vice Chair), E Tucker, Jan McCarthy and A Bullock (WYG)


NP16/53.  Declarations of Interests. None.


NP16/54.  Minutes – to approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 12th September 2016.

(These had been previously circulated to Cllrs). 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.


NP16/55.  Matters arising from the Minutes of the meeting held on 12th September 2016;   

(1) The Clerk advised he had sent a copy of the minutes of the 18th August meeting to TDBC/the Developers and asked them to confirm their agreement but had not yet had a response despite two reminders.


(2) NP/29(3) The Clerk updated on a planning application which impacts on the MH Urban Area;

14/16/0031 Outline Planning Application with some matters reserved for the erection of 35 No dwellings on and to the south west of Creech Medical Centre, Hyde Lane, CSM. CSM PC had voted against the application. The TDBC Planning Cttee had considered at its Sept meeting a report recommending refusal from their own officers and had been informed that the offer of land for a footpath by WofE could not be linked to the application. Planners had stated that they had allowed far too much development in CSM and that had been a mistake. Four of the TDBC Cllrs had voted to support their officer’s recommendation to reject the application but as five are required to make a decision TDBC had now to make a decision on how to proceed (it is anticipated that the application will be refused). It was envisaged therefore that the application may be considered at the next planning meeting but the Oct mtg agenda had been published that day and it had not been included. It was noted as the application site is outside of the village development boundary and the urban development area it should have been refused.


(3) NP16/40 (6) Rec Park. The Clerk reminded the Panel that the Parish Council had stated its desire to extend the Rec Park in order to help meet the growing demand from an increasing number of Parishioners for leisure activities.

In LGs absence the Clerk reported that she had spoken to the adj field Owner to see if an agreed sale could be achieved but had again been advised that she did not wish to sell. The PC had therefore decided to write making an offer to purchase 4 acres of the field and reconfirming the intention to use the Compulsory Purchase Order process if necessary. The Clerk advised he had written to TDBC Planning and Play Officers as first steps and had spoken to SALC who had advised of the need to collect written evidence to support the CP process. It was noted that if Planners had objections as outside of the Parish development boundary then they would have to refuse all forms of development.

Action. The Clerk to write to the owner making an offer to purchase 4 acres of the field.


(4) NP16/40 (7) M5 junc 25 improvements. M5 Junc 25 Improvements. CC advised that he and the Clerk had attended the SCC Highways consultation event on their plans to improve the Motorway Junction. The Clerk had been able to discuss the plan with Engineers along with representatives of Ruishton and WM Parish Councils. The Clerk explained that there is merit in the scheme as it provided 4 (rather than 3) lanes onto the roundabout from Taunton, it would also improve traffic flows through Henlade and had been designed to dovetail with Highways England plans to dual the A358. Work is expected to commence in 2018 and be completed in 2020. Regretfully though no improvements were included to the Creech Castle Lights and with the additional building in the Urban Development Area traffic flows would only worsen through Creech Castle and therefore increase the ‘rat running’ through the Villages. It had also been confirmed that that no safety improvement works were integral to the scheme for the Villages at present. The PC had decided therefore to support the scheme but make representations to improve Creech Castle Junction and to identify a package of improvements to be requested. This to include 20mph throughout the Village, a ‘pinch point’ to stop lorries from routing through, improvements to the pavements on the Railway and Canal Bridges and at Creech Heathfield and a pedestrian crossing.

CC offered that he and ET would do a review of Highways issues audit if, as he anticipated, the survey identified traffic issues as a priority.


5) NP16/49 (2). Childrens Centre. The Clerk had requested from SCC an update on the Childrens Centre. Despite their acknowledging the request and the Clerk having chased a reply this was still awaited. Action. The Clerk to follow up.


6) NP16/49 (8) Survey Maps. JB had provided pdf copies and these had been circulated by the Clerk on 14th Sept.


NP16/56. Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Questionnaire. 

JB reported that responses were coming in and everyone would have their chance to have their say. Reminders were in the Creech News, the Schools Newsletter and in School bags, the village website and facebook site with reminders weekly.  Data will be input, then, analysed with results being available at the end of November; though key message may appear earlier.


Discussion then took place on undertaking consultation with employers and young people simultaneously.

JB advised CCfS had surveyed employers elsewhere and offered to share the survey done. As LG had already indentified all the employers it was envisaged that this, suitably amended to meet the needs of CSM be sent to each employer and




those that then responded stating that they had requirements would have a follow up meeting with CC or IW. JB also offered to supply a draft script for these meeting.


JB also suggested she liaise with Heathfield and CSM Schools with the aim of their supporting access to undertake in as yet to be agreed form to hear the young people voices. JB also suggested that additionally “an open drop in pizza” evening be held in CSM and perhaps “on the street” to gather further views. It was reconised that specialist youth workers would be required to undertake these soundings and for them to be advertised widely. It was agreed JB will proceed with the Schools but as there would be a cost to the additional pizza evening is it was reconised the PC would need to be asked if they would meet the cost.

Action. JB to commence consultation with the Schools and Employers. The Clerk/IW to liaise with the PC Chair on the further youth consultation and to obtain quotes if agreed.


NP16/57. Neighbourhood Plan – Grant bids. 

The Clerk updated on funding bids submitted. Locality has confirmed a grant of £8,985 and a remittance advice had now been received. This had been welcomed by the PC as it reduces the cost to Parishioners. The CSM PC had set aside a £25,000 budget and this was fully committed to meeting the plans costs.


The Clerk had written to Awards for All (Lottery) to query their decision given the extent of development facing CSM.

In response an interview with the Clerk will take place next week.


NP16/58. Neighbourhood Plan Bill. 

IW explained that there is a new Neighbourhood Planning bill going through Parliament at present and this acknowledged the importance of the plans and local people making decisions on development. The full details are not fully understood yet but it seems our timescales are ahead of its implementation. For more info on the Govt’s neighbourhood Planning bill see: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-bill-will-boost-growth-and-housebuilding


NP16/59. Next Steps.

AB had sent a letter advising that the next steps could not be accurately assessed until the results had been received. The survey results would highlight the extent of the issues for the Parishioners and the need to address these would dictate the amount of and timetable for future work.


IW highlighted the need to complete the plan in a timely manner as both the PC and the Parishioners will want to see results and the Developers are likely to commence their developments within the Parish before Christmas.


The need for some form of ‘survey feedback’ events was identified; to be held in due course.


JB highlighted that CCfS were offering a free CIL and Neighbourhood Planning Session with a range of relevant speakers on 23rd Nov pm in West Monkton. JB offered to issue invites and provide more information shortly.


KR advised that the Creech News deadline for receiving content is 14th Nov.


NP16/60. Date of Next meeting

It was agreed that the next meeting would be held on Monday 14th November 6.30pm in the Village Hall Cttee Room.


The meeting closed at 8.35pm.


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