/ Parish Council / Mhue 2 / Minutes 22nd January 2020


JOINT PANEL (Monkton Heathfield Development)

Chairman Cllr Peter Brown.

Clerk: Steve Altria, 23, John Grinter Way, Wellington, Somerset, TA21 9AR

Tel: 01823 666295 Email: clerk@creechstmichael.net


mailto:Leader and Exec Cllrs

Somerset West and Taunton Council

Deane House

Belvedere Road

Taunton, Somerset.

Thursday, 23rd January 2020

Dear Cllrs

Land South of Manor Farm Langaller and West Monkton Heathfield Development 2.

I write as Chairman of the Joint Panel established by CSM and WM Councils (on the initiative of CSM PC) in order to ensure local people’s needs and voice is heard.

We understand a decision was taken (without consultation with the Parishes or prior knowledge) by TDBC in Jan 2019 to reallocate part of the land south of Manor Farm for housing.

At this time and after much asking the Panel finally saw the proposals for the area on Monday 20th January 2020 - to be considered by yourselves at the SWTC Executive to be held on 28th. So despite a year passing the Panel got to see for the first time the proposals just a week before the meeting and after papers have been issued to you.

As a result of the experience of the past months the Panel had anticipated this deficit occurring and therefore felt obliged to schedule a meeting the following day to agree an initial response in order to ensure you as Exec Members are aware of the local view ahead of decision making. Clearly it is not satisfactory to have just one day to learn and assess the full implications of the proposals and therefore the Panel reserves the right to make further points in the coming days should further implications become apparent.

The Panel has not had sight of a project plan, deliverables or milestones and those dates that have been given have consistently slipped. The Panel’s expectations were clearly set out in a letter to the project management in writing on 7th October. These have not been met and no proper consultation has taken place; essentially the Panel’s wishes have been ignored to date. This is simply unacceptable and accounts for the number of significant points the panel has asked me to make on the attached schedules.

At this time we are in a some what of a quandary; at a recent first meeting with the developer they made it clear that their priority and plans are to submit an application for the MH2 land very shortly whilst the reports before you suggest that the priority is to develop the land south of Manor Farm.

We have made constantly clear that our priority ahead of works proceeding is road safety in both Parishes yet this is not mentioned in the report. This was a point also made at the December Full Council meeting when the CSM Neighbourhood Plan was made. The panel would like confirmation that this will be addressed ahead of any further houses or work proceeding and formally requests a “Grampian” agreement be placed on the developers through a S106 agreement to ensure that road safety (North End to St Michaels Road in CSM and closure of Boome Lane at its junction with Adsborough Hill) that has occurred as a result of the full impact of the phase one of the development essentially not being identified until the ERR was opened and the problems with “rat running” immediately became apparent.

For these reasons the Panel feels it is premature to agree the recommendations and requests proper and meaningful consultation takes place and revised plans be prepared before a decision is made by the Executive.

The PC extends an invitation for an escorted walk through the areas in order to fully understand the issues.

I would also advise that the Panel Members will attend the Executive meeting on 28th

January 2020 in order to discuss their observations.

Yours sincerely

Peter Brown


Chair Joint Panel.


Schedule 1 Joint Panels observations on Land South of Manor Farm, Langaller.

Schedule 2 Joint Panels observations on MH2 Development Master plan.

CC Joint Panel PCllrs, SWTCllrs D Durdan and N Cavill, SCC Cllr D Fothergill.

Schedule 1


JOINT PANEL (Monkton Heathfield Development)

Comments to SWTC Executive 28th Jan 2020

Comments on Land South of Manor Farm Langaller Proposals.

  1. The Panel wants the Industrial site to be limited to category B1 and B2 (not B8) given the lorry and van traffic B8 generates and the look of the site adjacent to housing.

  2. Access as proposed from the industrial estate onto Hyde Lane should be removed. Pupils would have to cross this access to get to School on their “safe route to School”. It would encourage vehicles to use Hyde Lane; a narrow road on which SCC are about to rollout a calming scheme in view of the parking difficulties and danger to school pupils and health centre users alike.

  3. Hyde Lane to become a cycle/footpath as proposed but there is a need to upgrade the surfacing over the motorway bridge as this is currently unwalkable (they were not designed to be pavements), neither do they meet the requirements to be a cycleway and the bridge parapets need heightening by Highways England.

  1. The access from the Hardys Road roundabout on the ERR into the site should reflect the road layout already consented in the planning permission for the sports pitches. If the access road takes the route proposed the car park provision for the sports pitches will be removed.

  2. That part of the planned cycleway along the side of the Hyde Lane Cottages (i.e. over the bund) be

removed to avoid overlooking.

6 The availability of the Langaller Manor Farm site being included in the development at this time is


  1. We seek assurance on agreeing realistic trigger points and implementation plan and to be consulted on these if any renegotiation is subsequently required then the PC Joint Panel is involved in decisions being taken. That a series of trigger point be agreed to ensure that industrial units are built in line with the number of houses.

  2. That sufficient parking spaces are provided with each house and grass cretes are used to enable better on street parking. Where there are grass verges which are not suitable for parking, bollards should be included to prevent parking on grass verges. It is clear that the lessons of MH1 have not been learnt on parking because estate roads become impassable to emergency vehicles, refuse wagons, and domestic delivery vehicles when cars are parked on both sides of the street. This has been documented and reported in Roys Place.

  1. Experience of MH1 demonstrates that courtyard parking is largely not used with the result that on road parking occurs with the subsequent problems of access that creates.

  1. Flats are to be subject to adequate on and off street parking.

  2. Bus Services. There needs to be both “rapid” buses direct into Town and “Hopper” buses that run through the estates timetabled. We wish more discussion on the plans for buses. Support HIF bid for public transport.

  3. Buses to be available from day one of build in order to ensure/embed bus use.

  4. That buildings are typically 1 or 2 floors with only some 2 ½. No buildings are to be three storeys.

  5. Bungalows to be 10% of the build at open market value.

  6. Examples of local estates deemed to have quality and character are St Quintons Park, Acacia Gardens and Hillyfield’s. Keen to have houses with good design with chimneys, bay windows, balconies etc. Boundaries should be stone or brick walls and not panel fencing to support the garden town feel.

  7. Houses to be orientated to get solar gain.

  8. Houses to have solar panels. To be supplied with invertors and batteries so residents’ benefits and only surplus is fed into the grid. all houses should have a 5kw system with minimum 2 x 2.4kw batteries

  9. Homes to have accessible charging points for cars.

  10. Increase Allotment provision to 50 plots.

  11. Need to ensure that adequate funds are provided to ensure that the pavilion to be built alongside the sports fields is adequately funded.

  12. Site need to have playgrounds with quality and challenging equipment (LEAP and NEAP)

  13. Rec Park in Hyde Lane is the closest main Park/Rec Ground. Need to ensure a good footpath/ cycleway is provided to access it.

  14. Trees Planting to be “Heavy standards” not whips.

  15. Implement a scheme of tree planting along both sides of the motorway in order to screen and reduce noise.

  16. It is not clear from the proposals what school provision is being made. There should be sufficient s106 money made available to provide additional classrooms at current local schools already full e.g. Creech St Michael Primary, West Monkton Primary. As all local schools are full there this will create management issues for the schools and adversely impact on pupils.

  17. Clarity is sought over management arrangements for the open spaces and these need to be set out within sale contracts. The option to transfer the open space to the Parish Council should be included.

  18. Need to ensure that the green context/Garden Town principles are fully embraced.

  19. Lighting (LED) position suitability to avoid solar glare.

  20. Homes to have highspeed internet to be available from day one.

  21. Development to reflect the policies of both Parishes Neighbourhood Plans.


Schedule 2


JOINT PANEL (Monkton Heathfield Development)

Comments to SWTC Executive 28th Jan 2020

Comments on Monkton Heathfield 2 development master plan.

  1. While integrating MH1 and MH2 is supported, the proposal to remove the road link between the two roundabouts at Langaller with a circuitous route through the District Centre is not. The current road should be kept open and heavily traffic calmed with adequate pedestrian crossing points in order to create a tree lined Bouvard with a cycleway and footpath along side. The practicalities of businesses elsewhere in West Monkton using these roads have not been properly addressed.

  2. Close Boome Road at its junction with Adsborough Hill and address CSM Village (North End/St Michaels Road) in order to address road safety issues ahead of any development.

  3. ERR2 to be built ahead of housing development to be completed in one build out. To be tree lined with sufficient width to permit future duelling.

  4. ERR1 to have a second turn left lane at the roundabout at Bathpool (when travelling towards Town/ Creech Castle).

  5. Query over funding as ERR2 is not in current HIF bid.

  6. Yet to see a Strategic Management Plan and Impact Assessment.

  7. Existing A38 to be downgraded before School opens.

  8. School Parking. The realities of family life are that parental choice and ‘two worker house holds’ “dropping and running” creates parking issues outside school unless enough car parking is provided. The Panel would like that school access to be via the existing A38 away from the MH2 centre. Also, for the school to have sufficient carparking spaces for all its staff, deliveries, visitors and coach pickups/drop-offs accessed from existing A38. School to have main pedestrian /cycle access/ frontage onto MH2 centre.

  9. New entrance to be provided by the developers for Monkton Elms Garden Centre off existing A38.

  10. We don’t understand the logic of the extended bus calmed area. Suggest just installing a bus gate.

  1. Bus Services. There needs to be both “rapid” buses direct into Town and “Hopper” buses that run through the estates timetabled. We wish more discussion on the plans for buses. Support HIF bid for

public transport.

  1. Would wish to see a bus lane at the bottom of Yallands Hill as it goes onto Priorswood Road.

13 Play areas to be provided (to the left of the green lane crossing) as originally planned - not ever more pitches. Suggest full size lit MUGAs capable of Tennis and other sports. Also, a skateboard park, bowls green etc. Both Parishes have consulted with their Parishioners as part of their Neighbourhood Plans and can share this research need.

  1. West Monkton Scout Group have suggested a serviced site for a Scout Hut and their request is supported for either development site.

  2. The “Tunnel” under the motorway (owned by Highways England) and accessible by existing RofW to be upgraded and made available by developers to enable another access to CSM.

  3. The panel wants the development to have more of a village urban feel and look rather than a town urban feel. No 3 level houses. Want bungalows and low-cost housing for young people (starter homes). Bungalows are part of Neighbourhood Plan policy

  4. Provision for senior citizens; warden controlled and sited very close to village centre.

  5. MH2 must minimise the impact on CSM.

17. Development to reflect the policies of both Parishes Neighbourhood Plans.