To: Wolborough Residents’ Association Members – June Newsletter 2019 Apologies for the gap since the last general newsletter. Hopefully, we have managed to keep Members up to date with the series of newsletters and briefings.

PCL Planning Application 17/01542/MAJ Appeal Against Non-Determination Part 2 – 11th & 12th June The Appeal began back in March (26th & 27th) when the weather was much better! Who would have believed it? The adverse weather did not deter Newton Says No who again made their presence felt outside Forde House.

The hearing resumed with an application on our behalf by Dr Paul Stookes to present expert evidence on air quality. Although there was an objection from the Appellants, a “conversation” ensued which effectively allowed our expert, Dr Claire Holman, to explain in detail her evidence. Her written proof of evidence had been accepted into the hearing documentation before the Inspector. The Appellants fielded their expert, who happened to be a former employee of Claire’s. The ensuing exchanges resulted in her largely accepting Claire’s conclusions.

There then followed the evidence of the Appellant’s biodiversity expert, Dr. Stephen Holloway. His stance was to insist that the survey carried out back in 2013 was sufficient to support the application and that there had been no changes in the NA3 habitat or the surrounding area. He contended that there were no roosts within the NA3 allocation and the only flyway that mattered was across the top of the hill above the development area. These assertions despite the subsequent opening of the A380 South Devon Link Road in December 2016 (which traversed a Greater Horseshoe Bat strategic flyway). He also insisted that there was no evidence to suggest changes in roosts or foraging habits over the last six years. Michael Bedford QC on behalf of Teignbridge then did an effective job in demolishing his evidence and demonstrating that the Appellants had failed to meet the requirements of the Habitat Regulations (in providing up to date survey results).

David Seaton of PCL Planning then gave his evidence. Again, under cross-examination, Michael Bedford highlighted numerous gaps in the evidence supporting the application. Charles Banner QC, acting for the Appellants, launched several rescue missions to get his client out of trouble; tactics unlikely to fool an experienced Inspector.

Of particular interest was the reference to the judgement in our case before Mrs Justice Lang back in 2014 stipulating a requirement to demonstrate that no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of the South Hams Special Area of Conservation. Although we lost the case challenging the Teignbridge Local Plan, this judgment could prove crucial to our current case.

On day 2 the NHS put their case for inclusion of a sum of £1 million Section 106 contribution to fund the gap between when the new houses are occupied and when they are funded for the increased population; a gap of two years. The Appellants fielded David Lock QC, a former MP and specialist in NHS law and practice. He argued that from the stance of changes to Government funding methodology and the national principles of funding. Paul Cooper, Finance Director of the South Devon Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, gave details of how funding operated in practice at local level. Hopefully, for the NHS, a persuasive argument. There is no doubt that the claim by Jeremy Christophers that the NHS “were trying it on” weighed heavily on their minds!

The final session on day 2 was consideration of the draft conditions that would be attached if planning permission were to be granted and the contents of a Section 106 agreement. This is standard practice in any planning appeal. In effect, if the Inspector recommends approval, the Secretary of State will want to know what conditions will be attached to the grant and what the developer will be expected to contribute financially to, for instance, local infrastructure, sports and community facilities.

On Thursday the Inspector held a site inspection. This was a very thorough process covering not just the application site, but the surrounding roads. The first couple of hours covered St. Mary’s, Church Fields, the Farmyard, the Rolling Fields (from the indicative route of the link road and from the ridge), the Fen and the Cemetery. Happily, the Inspector chose to walk back from the Cemetery Lodge to St Mary’s along the Old Totnes Road with sufficient passing traffic to clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of the local infrastructure.

1

The Inspector then took to the vehicles travelling with Wendy Grierson (Abbotskerswell Parish Council), Ian Perry (TDC), David Seaton (PCL Planning) and our lawyer, Paul Stookes riding shotgun; there to make sure nothing inappropriate was said. With a degree of irony, Paul Evemy and your Secretary travelled in David Seaton’s Discovery driven by Anthony Rew. Also, on the tour was Rhiannon Rhys, Inspector of Historic Buildings, Chrissy Mason, Ecologist with Devon County & Teignbridge, Mary White and Councillor Janet Bradford.

The party toured all around the allocation starting along Stoneman’s Hill, where we stopped to walk along the ridgeline to look at the distant views of Highweek and Dartmoor beyond. We also looked south to embrace the strategic flyway and Milber. While on the ridgeline we were serenaded by a skylark and hopefully the Inspector picked up on how precious these views and habitats are. We then journeyed through Abbotskerswell Village, along Priory Road, over the traffic light-controlled railway bridge in Kingskerswell Road and back under the bridge near Sainsburys and along Coach Road a couple of times. The final lap was through Wolborough Street demonstrating its narrowness and highlighting the close proximity of the Air Quality Management Area (which begins at the Mackrell’s Alms Houses and extends across the Town out to the Fountain at Kingsteignton with Wolborough Street being the most polluted section).

On the conclusion of the tour, the Inspector was going to revisit much of the area as well as going over to Highweek Church to see its relationship to St Mary’s. She was also going to look again around the Church, the Fen and Country Park from the top of Buckland estate as well as at other areas where development has taken place near the Town. Hopefully, she has gained a good impression of the problems being visited on Newton Abbot with the scale of development (and absence of improvements to the infrastructure).

Technically, the Appeal remains open until 1st July. This is to enable the parties to submit their closing arguments as time did not permit these to be delivered orally at the hearing. The Appellants will be submitting an application for costs against Teignbridge and the NHS whilst the NHS consider making a reciprocal application against the Appellants. We will also be submitting an application for costs on the basis that there were numerous gaps in the evidence presented in the 2017 application which the Appellants could have remedied and that in view of this, we had twice invited them to withdraw their appeal. It would be wonderful to see the Appeal dismissed and be awarded our costs. However, costs are often left to lie where they fall in such cases; we can but hope.

As a reminder, the main issues being addressed by the Inspector are: - • the impact of the proposal on the well-being of bio-diversity and ecological connectivity in the locality; • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of nearby heritage assets with particular regard to their significance and setting; • whether required associated infrastructure and mitigation can be delivered appropriately; • the effect of the proposed additional traffic generated on the free flow of traffic and conditions in relation to the safety of highway users and the provision of future highway infrastructure; and whether in light of any impacts the proposal would be sustainable development, at one with national and local policy in this regard.

We believe that we have demonstrated the failure of the Appellant’s to demonstrate that there are no gaps in their evidence presented in the application to enable the Competent Authority (Teignbridge) to make a decision. With the hearing not being closed until 1st July followed by the summer holiday season and the near certainty there will be a new Secretary of State (currently The Rt Hon. James Brokenshire MP) following the Conservative Party leadership election, we do not expect to hear the outcome much before late autumn at best. A General Election later in the year may well further delay matters.

What if we lose? Our only option to challenge a decision is by a Judicial Review; an action which has a reasonable chance of success as we believe that if the Secretary of State grants the Appeal and gives planning consent, this will be an unlawful act (because of the two judgments in our legal challenge against the Local Plan). There is also a very good chance that other agencies would take this up as a national test case (on the strength of our environmental laws).

2

Development Framework Plan for NA3 Wolborough You may recall from previous newsletters that we, along with Abbotskerswell Parish Council, have met with the Planners to discuss the draft Development Framework Plan for NA3 and had been invited to participate in the process of converting this into a Development Plan Document , a much stronger vehicle for managing and controlling development; it has teeth. We await to hear when our involvement will begin.

Langford Bridge Farm – Application 19/00238/MAJ We submitted a detailed objection to this application (which has been circulated to Members) reserving the right to submit further comments on strategic flyways and air quality. We also urged Teignbridge not to consider this application until the outcome of the Appeal is known as there is a high degree of inter- dependence (not least the alignment of the link road and the in-combination effects of the two developments).

Local Plan Review Twelve months ago, we submitted a very detailed critique of the Local Plan pointing out where we saw weaknesses and flaws. It appears that the review was limited to addressing the wording in certain sections of the Plan and not what would have been expected, taking the opportunity to look at progress and adjust targets in line with changes in circumstances over the last five years.

The Department of the Environment “Best Practice Protocol for the Operation of Planning Committees” states the following: “The planning committee should ensure that the local development plan is monitored annually, particularly in terms of the availability of housing and economic development land, and that it is reviewed every five years, giving consideration to whether there is a need to change the plan strategy or the zonings, designations and policies as contained in the local policies plan.”

We firmly believe that the housing numbers upon which the Local Plan was based were significantly over stated. The requests to Teignbridge to reveal the methodology by which they arrived at their conclusions has still not been satisfactorily answered. This is a matter that is being pursued by our new Councillors.

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan Following a change of regime at East Devon there is now some doubt about the future of this project. The issue appears to be what their new Council consider over-development which might result in them pulling out. Nationally there is growing concern about development particularly as it seems to be a developers’ paradise which does little to satisfy the underlying problems of affordability and meeting local demand.

Devon County Football Association (DCFA) – Application for an artificial pitch (18/01690/MAJ) The saga continues with a stark reminder of the problems associated with activities at this venue coming on both May Bank Holiday weekends. Again, the commercial enterprise, R & T Tours, held one of their football holidays at Coach Road and Decoy. There were numerous complaints from excessive noise, litter and unacceptable behaviour.

The internal investigation into the amendments to the minutes of the Planning Committee (which approved the installation of the 3G artificial pitch) has fizzled out. Of further concern is that decision was made by Teignbridge to contribute £220,000 towards costs, without this being made known to the Planning Committee. This fact only emerged after the local elections; another example of decisions being made behind closed doors and only partial information given to the decision makers. Our new Councillors may have more to say on these matters particularly as the report to the Executive supporting the expenditure begs more questions than it answers.

The £220,000 contribution to DCFA only emerged when Councillor Gordon Hook, Leader of the Council, was asked to sign the sum off. The proposal was put to the Executive at their meeting on the 6th June when a decision was deferred to allow time for DCFA and the Association to negotiate a “Management Plan” for the facility. The monies will not be forthcoming until agreement between all parties is reached.

Thank you to Philip Mogridge and John Pike who have helped to develop a tighter set of documents to help manage the activities. We will be submitting these proposals to Teignbridge and DCFA before we all meet together with Gordon Hook again later this month.

3

The various documents will then be appended to the new lease Teignbridge are granting to DCFA so that they become enforceable (by Teignbridge). We will circulate further details early next month when the final outcome is known.

Cavanna Wolborough The new houses are rising up from the ground as the development begins to take shape. Problems remain for those living nearby with noise and dust. If still on target, building work will be complete by around Easter next year.

Fundraising The Crowdfunder account, which is now closed, was disappointing in that it raised much less than we had hoped and expected. Nonetheless, every penny helps and we are better placed now than we were before. If anyone wishes to make further donations they can do so to our Association Fighting Fund (WRA, Sort Code 30- 84-67; Account Number 53454068) Thank you.

Damascene Conversion? Our MP, Anne Marie Morris, has taken up the baton arguing against the current centrally dictated formula for determining local housing need. This is an issue we have raised with her and various Ministers over the years as we continue to press for a locally determined plan, not one subject to central diktat.

To quote Anne Marie “the formula that sets the number of houses needed is flawed and the system isn’t strong enough to enforce types of housing needed. Currently, the system enables developers to build ‘executive homes’ by claiming they are unable to afford to build other types of housing. Therefore, we end up with housing that is neither affordable nor suits the housing needs of the local population. Despite being ‘local’ plans, the power over housing building has become more centralised at national level, taking power away from local authorities. Such a move completely ignores the needs and opinions of local communities; the ones who often know best.”

In pursuit of this motion, Anne Marie sponsored a debate in Westminster Hall last Tuesday. Within that debate she made reference to NA3 saying “I want to touch on the environmental impact. This is a huge issue; it has had a significant impact in my constituency. There is a much fought-over development in Newton Abbot, called NA3. It is currently being reviewed by the Government, because the local authority did not make a decision in sufficient time. The developer has effectively said that they want it to be looked at in more detail, and that process is ongoing as we speak. I will not refer to the details exactly, as the matter is currently in train, but the way the system works means that no account has been taken of the real number of houses we need, nor of the real value of that particular piece of land, which offers much in environmental support and opportunity for the area as a whole.

Another example is Kingsteignton, one of the smallest towns in the country. It started out as a very small village and just got developed and developed. The character of that village has largely been destroyed and it has become a small commuter town—a dormitory suburb of Exeter. It was never developed to be a town, so there is no physical centre such as a cluster of shops that people can go to, to give a heart to that community.”

The full report of the debate can be viewed at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2019-06- 11a.299.0&p=10381

Local Council Elections Congratulations to Janet Bradford and Liam Mullone who not only won the College ward seats under the Newton Says No banner but did so with substantial majorities. Also, congratulations to Richard Daws who won a seat for Ambrook Ward to sit alongside Mary Colclough.

The entire District results (and indeed as happened over much of the Country) demonstrated the strength of feeling against the previous administration with many of their number being heavily defeated. The new Council has a major challenge to regain public confidence in open and transparent governance and we wish them all well. We will continue our apolitical stance working with our Councillors.

4