Appendix 5

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 2008 AND 2009 (as reported at the time)

1.1. All the statutory publicity and notices required for an application accompanied by an Environmental Statement have been carried out in association with the District Council in association with the City Council.

1.2. In addition, three public exhibitions on the applications and the addendum information were held at Brixton, and Plympton in October 2007. Approximately 232 people attended these exhibitions.

1.3. Prior to receipt of the Addenda a total of 29 letters of representation were received by individual members of the public concerning the proposal for the new community. A proportion of these letters were submitted directly to City Council in response to the planning application that falls within the Plymouth administrative boundary, and similarly, a number of letters were submitted directly to District Council. As many of the issues raised relate to cross-boundary issues, letters have been shared between the two Councils so that all representations may be considered by the two determining authorities.

1.4. Responses to all representations made by the public and by consultees have been considered by topic base throughout the analysis sections.

1.5. All letters of representation are available for viewing on the Plymouth and South Hams District Council websites.

Representation received from Nov 2006 1.6. This section of the Appendix lists the Representations as they were reported previously .

1.7. Eight letters were generated by residents of the South Hams. The remaining representations were generated by residents of Plymstock and Elburton, Plympton and Vinery Lane, all of which are located within the Plymouth Boundary.

1.8. Further representations have been received in respect of the Addenda and these are referred to separately below.

1.9. The applicants point out that a document has been agreed between SHARD (South Hams Against Residential Development) and the Elburton Residents Association which contains proposals to leave Sherford Road open to traffic but seeks to reduce the attractiveness of Sherford Road through a number of measures on the existing highway and within the development itself.

Brixton and Sherford hinterland

1.10. The majority of representations that have been generated by South Hams residents are located within the Brixton Torr area which is situated to the west of Brixton, and located downstream from the Sherford stream. The principle concern of these residents relates to the robustness of the Flood Risk Assessment, and the high probability of down stream flooding as a result of the development. Many of the objectors highlighted the flaws of the original submission that had proposed run-off to be at 50% Greenfield rate. However, there have been no additional comments received on this matter since the addendum to the Flood Risk Assessment revised the attenuation proposals so that surface water run-off would be released into the stream at a Greenfield rate.

1.11. A number of concerns have also been raised by residents of Brixton and Yealmpton, in respect to traffic. It has been highlighted that the existing lanes surrounding Sherford are narrow and are enjoyed by walkers, dog walkers, cyclist and horse riders, and that suitable mitigation will be required to ensure that sufficient passing places are provided and that the safety of these users are guaranteed, especially in light of increased traffic during construction. Furthermore, concern has also been raised as to the effect the increase in traffic will have on journeys into Plymouth along the A379, and the loss of the ‘short cut’ onto the A38.

1.12. Only one representation has been submitted questioning the need for the development, and the resultant loss of countryside that would follow.

1.13. Objections have also been received concerning the lack of an approved location for the Sewage Treatment Works, and the increase in crime and disturbance that the development would generate.

Elburton, Plymstock and Vinery Lane

1.14. By far the largest number of representations that have been received are from residents of Elburton, Plymstock and Vinery Lane. Many of the objections received were following the initial consultation period and prior to the withdrawal of the ‘Sherford Refined’ application. Few representations have been received following receipt and advertisement of the addendum material in October and revised documentation in January.

1.15. The overwhelming objection of Elburton residents relates to increased traffic generation, specifically along Vinery Lane and Haye Road, and to a similar extent, the proposed alignment of the Main Street, and its associated impacts upon these two roads. Reference is made to the existing use of Haye Road and Vinery Lane, both as an access to businesses and dwellings, and as a rat run, and concerns are raised as to how these will function during construction and following the developments completion. Furthermore, objections have been raised over proposed junction arrangements at Stanborough Cross and at the intersection of the Main Street and Vinery Lane. Many of the representations on these matters conflict with each other in respect of the reasons for objecting and the possible alternatives to the proposal.

1.16. Concern has also been raised with the impact of the proposal on the highway network away from the site. Many residents have expressed access issues to their properties along Elburton Road, and that the increase traffic will cause hold ups along Laira Bridge.

1.17. A large proportion of representations received referred to the proposals for King George V playing fields. Many called for the fields to be removed from the site boundary to protect the use of the facilities, and to safeguard it from the development. A number of the letters also raised concerns over the location of the Main Street in relation to these playing fields claiming that this would lead to health and safety issues.

1.18. Other matters raised by Elburton and Plymstock residents included the need for suitable conditions to safeguard sites from flooding, measures to protect archaeological remains and requests to deliver a more carbon neutral community. One resident also recommended that a cycle link through the High Street should be incorporated to link the development to the NCN 2 route.

1.19. Other matters that are not planning related have been raised including the possible depreciation of existing property values in the Elburton area.

Plympton

1.20. Initial objections that were raised by the residents of Plympton questioned the soundness of the North Plymstock AAP and expressed support for the ‘Sherford Refined’ application as its proposed location was further from Plympton. The main issues raised by the representations also related to the transport proposals questioning the benefits of a dedicated bus lane through the centre of the settlement, and the impacts that would be caused to Deep Lane junction, the A379 and Laira Bridge. Objections also related to the potential pollution problems associated with development adjacent to motorways, the visual impact of the wind turbines, the loss of archaeological remains and the impacts that would be associated with increased traffic travelling through the Plympton St Maurice Conservation Area.

1.21. A number of representations have also been received following the exhibitions in October. Concerns were still raised over the Main Street and other highway proposals, however, a number of letters referred to the need for community facilities to be in place at an early stage of the development process, affordable homes to be available for local people and that Sherford should be designed to resemble a traditional market town.

1.22. Letters of representation also referred to the existing capacity of the sewage treatment plant in Plympton, and that the disposal of further sewage into the Plym would have a detrimental impact on the recreational value of the Plym.

Representation Conclusion 1.23. Not surprisingly, the level and type of objection that has been raised by individual members of the public differ, depending upon where the objection is raised. However, the following issues can be summarised as the main objections that have been raised;

• Increased traffic generation; • Disruption to the existing road network; • Increased use of roads as a rat run; • Inappropriate road alignment; • Impacts to existing road junctions (Deep Lane, Stanborough Cross); • Increase in traffic in surrounding settlements; • Access to existing dwellings and businesses will be affected; • No proposals for treating foul sewage; • Increased risk of flooding; • Loss of KGV playing fields are unacceptable; • Inappropriate proposals to consider the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, other road users and patrons of the sports facilities; • Lack of measures to encourage cycling; • Loss of Banks; • Visual impact of wind turbines; and • Departure from the Development Plan.

Representations received following submission of the Addenda in May 2009 2. This section of the Appendix lists the Representations as they were reported previously .

Brixton and Sherford Hinterland

2.1. Following submission of the Addenda additional views on planning matters have been received from a Brixton resident suggesting that there is a need for Sherford amenity land to be used for off-road horse riding as there could be a tragedy on local lanes with a huge increase in traffic.

2.2. A Hareston resident objects, and is concerned about the dramatic cut in affordable housing and the possible destruction of farmland (which is an attractive landscape and important wildlife habitat) for development companies, and possibly councils, making money. She questions whether house buyers would be found.

Plympton

2.3. Following submission of the Addenda additional views on planning matters have been received from residents of 39 Canefield Avenue, 44 Barnfield Drive, and 99 Woodford Avenue.

2.4. One resident feels that the initial ideals are slowly being diluted from the Utopia promised (and presented to the AAP Inspector) with the likelihood of a variety of ‘rat-runs’ and a disappointing later phasing for the undergrounding of power lines. The many archaeological features across the site need to be investigated thoroughly. One objects and one expresses concern about the proposed reduction in the amount of much needed; affordable housing, which is detrimental to the region.

2.5. One objects on the basis that no provision has been for gypsy and travellers sites in compliance with the adopted Core strategy.

Elburton Residents

2.6. Following submission of the Addenda additional views on planning matters have been received from residents of 50, 71 and 75 Candish Drive, 12 and 13 Hazelwood Crescent, 8 Yarrow Mead, 27 Haye Road, 124 and 163 Elburton Road, 2, 50 and 60 Vinery Lane and 28 and 94 Sherford Road.

2.7. Four residents express concern about the re-phasing commencing in the south west and suggest that the applicants should have kept to their assurances that the Main Street including Haye Road junction and link road would be in place at the start of the project to prevent existing roads including Sherford Road being traffic bound. Several object to the southern haul road as Sherford Road has a weight restriction limit, is unsuitable for heavy construction traffic, its use would cause enormous inconvenience for local residents and it should be negotiated in a less populated area of the development. One requests that the southern haul road should be “daytime use only” until such time as the development is ready for occupation. One points out that Sherford Road is currently used for parking vehicles and sections have no pavements and it is used as a short-cut to the A38 and Plympton and should be made into a cul-de-sac accessed from the Elburton pub end. Existing hedges and trees should be retained to maintain natural screening and privacy and all pedestrian and vehicular access to Sherford should be via the proposed Haye Road link road.

2.8. One questions the drainage and waste disposal arrangements, the need for a cycle link across KGV and two express concerns at the proposed reduction in size of the Community Park and four query whether the width of the buffer zone between Elburton and Sherford has been reduced. One resident objects to Devon being ruined by excessive development and Sherford being built on the Plymouth boundary reducing the quality of life of Elburton resident. He expresses concern that there would be a likely increase in the volume of traffic and pressure to widen Haye Road and suggests that the alternative route to Plymouth (the off-line option) should be built avoiding Stanborough Cross and a lot of the A379. New drainage infrastructure would be needed at the Haye Road junction to mitigate flooding and the off-line route could accommodate new service mains.

2.9. An Elburton Road resident is concerned that there should have been more public consultation concerning the addenda and expresses concern that it is difficult for the public to know the effects of the latest amendments on other parts of the plan. He questions how the infrastructure will be paid for, whether all the schools will be built, whether there will be bus services from Hooe and Oreston to Sherford swimming pool, and which land is removed from the country park. He suggests that the swimming pool should be built in central Plymstock and the Park & Ride in the South Hams, and all roads into Plymouth including Laira Bridge should be in place before any housing is built.

2.10. Another Elburton Road resident suggests that there is no need for Sherford and questions who will pay for Deep Lane junction/Laira Bridge improvements and subsidised bus fares that would be needed and suggests that it should be delayed until the national economy is back on track. He is concerned that the park is to be halved in size and raises questions about drainage and the need for two wind turbines with a new gas power station nearby. He suggests that there could be subsidence problems from natural underground caves and blast lines from Moorcroft quarry.

2.11. A Vinery Road resident suggests that the applicants should have submitted a composite set of information detailing the changes to assist understanding of likely impacts of the changes, and suggests that a planning condition is warranted for the implementation of flood mitigation measures where Main Street crosses Vinery Lane. There is also a need for highway measures to prevent vehicle parking on Vinery Lane and for the road surface to be repaired. He is concerned about possible noise and light pollution from a proposed floodlit football pitch but welcomes the phase 1 provision of the sports hub as it would allow the people of Plymstock and Elburton to use the facilities sooner. Two residents are concerned that there could be a increased traffic on Vinery Lane if used as a short cut between Elburton and Sherford /Deep Lane junction and suggest that Vinery Lane should be a cul-de-sac and that there is adequate space for a turning head without encroaching onto the KGV playing fields.

2.12. One Vinery Lane resident questions whether his right of access is to be compromised as he requires sufficient room to bring farm machinery through the entrance.

2.13. Another Vinery Lane correspondent suggests that the application be rejected as the revisions are contrary to the AAP as sustainable travel and the HQPT route with associated highway works would not be provided from the outset. He is concerned that there is no certainty that the applicants would make the substantial private sector contribution needed to secure the forthcoming MSB. If approval is warranted, he suggests that the advanced works must exclude the proposal to construct a haul road off Sherford Road and include the closure of Vinery Lane to through traffic (so preventing access/egress from them by construction traffic). He also suggests that the Stanborough Cross improvements and Haye Road junction need to be provided at the outset and Ridge Road should be widened at the eastern end to allow two way traffic flows. Main Street should also be extended to the east to Brixton Road from the outset.

2.14. Three residents suggests that a reduction in affordable homes seems to oppose one of the main reasons for this development and one questions how much need there is for a new town if it is not particularly for local people or puts up house prices beyond the means of locals.

Late Representations to May 2009 consultation 2.15. 16 late representations were sent to Plymouth City Council from the residents of 2, 29, 32, 59, 63, 65, 67, 69, 72 and 96 Sherford Road; 2 and 18 Hartwell Avenue; 45 and 47 Brookwood Road; 5 Nettlehayes and 79 Candish Drive. Most of these late letters express concerns about the notification procedure, suggesting that all residents should have been notified by letter of the amendments to the planning application. Most of these letters express similar concerns relating to the re-phasing proposal as those already mentioned by many other Elburton residents as already outlined in the Report – including that the original phasing should be adhered to, with major infrastructure provided first. There is concern that Sherford Road is an extremely busy country lane used for ‘rat running’ between Plympton and Plymstock and that contractors’ vehicles will add to the problems. There is concern about the “Lower Haul Road”. A couple of residents refer to a possible subsidence risk area along Sherford Road. Some residents state that access along Sherford Road by even light traffic to serve 200 dwellings would imply a massive increase in Sherford Road traffic. This increase in volume would result in traffic bottlenecks, accidents and an erosion of the character of the area.

Letters also refer to concerns about the reduction in size of the Community Park and the number of affordable houses, and a suggestion is made that all the changes warranted a fresh planning application rather than an amended one.

All representations are available on Councils website.