CREECH ST MICHAEL PARISH COUNCIL Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018-2038

Consultation Statement

April 2018

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1

2.0 Background and Context ...... 2

2.1 BACKGROUND ...... 2

2.2 NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN AREA ...... 2

2.3 PREPARATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN ...... 3

3.0 Consultation Scope and Methodology ...... 4

4.0 Main Issues and Concerns ...... 9

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 9

4.2 PRE-VISION CONSULTATION ...... 9

4.3 REGULATION 14 PRE-SUBMISSION DRAFT CONSULTATION ...... 16

5.0 Further Evidence Base Consultation ...... 9

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 9

4.2 PRE-VISION CONSULTATION ...... 9

4.3 REGULATION 14 PRE-SUBMISSION DRAFT CONSULTATION ...... 16

6.0 Summary and Conclusion ...... 51

6.1 SUMMARY ...... 51

6.2 CONCLUSION ...... 51

Appendix A – List of those consulted Appendix B – Pre-vision consultation response summaries Appendix C – Copies of responses received to Regulation 14 consultation Appendix D – Further consultation responses

1.0 Introduction

1.1.1 In April 2012, the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 came into force, setting out the procedure for relevant bodies, including Parish Councils, to prepare and adopt Neighbourhood Plans.

1.1.2 The Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) was initiated through the appointment of a formal panel, made up of volunteer residents and Councillors, in January 2016 and instruction of Community Council for Somerset (CCS) and WYG to carry out surveying and planning support respectively.

1.1.3 This Consultation Statement has been prepared to support the NDP and is intended to fulfil the legal obligations of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended). Section 15(2) with the inclusion of the following:

a) Details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed neighbourhood development plan;

b) An explanation of how they were consulted;

c) A summary of the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted;

d) A description of how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, how they have been addressed in the proposed neighbourhood development plan.

1.1.4 This statement is structured as follows:

• Section 2: Background and Context

• Section 3: Consultation Scope and Methodology

• Section 4: Main Issues and Concerns

• Section 5: Summary and Conclusion

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 1 www.wyg.com

2.0 Background and Context

2.1 Background

2.1.1 Neighbourhood planning is intended to give communities the ability to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the development and growth of their local area, including adopting local policies and in some cases, granting planning permission through Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build. The process is not mandatory and is instigated by choice by a relevant body.

2.1.2 Creech St Michael Parish is located around 3 miles to the north east of the county town of Taunton, Somerset and straddles the M5 motorway. Within the Parish, the village of Creech St Michael lies to the east of the M5, along with the hamlets of Charlton, Creech Heathfield and Ham. The hamlets of Adsborough, Coombe, Langaller and Walford lie to west of the motorway. These scattered villages and wider, open areas of agricultural land make the Parish rural in nature.

2.1.3 To the west, and partially within the Parish, a strategic development allocation has been included within Taunton Deane Borough Council’s (TDBC) adopted Core Strategy, known as the Monkton Heathfield urban extension. Overall, the urban extension encompasses approximately 4,500 new homes along with 22.5 hectares of employment. A further 139 dwellings are allocated within TDBC’s Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (SADMP), which was adopted in 2016. The Parish’s location close to Taunton and the M5 motorway results in both pressure and opportunities from new development as the Government’s agenda to significantly boost housing supply continues.

2.1.4 Within the above context, Creech St Michael Parish Council were keen to engage with the neighbourhood planning process to enable the local community to be involved in shaping future development proposals that may come forward within the Parish. The Creech St Michael NDP was initiated through the appointment of a formal panel, made up of volunteer residents and Councillors, in January 2016 and instruction of CCS and WYG to carry out surveying and planning support respectively.

2.2 Neighbourhood Plan Area

2.2.1 As a relevant body, Creech St Michael Parish Council submitted an application to TDBC on 9th March 2016 to designate the whole parish of Creech St Michael as a ‘Neighbourhood Area’ for the purposes of preparing a NDP. Following a consultation of the proposed boundary that ended on 6th May 2016, TDBC designated the Neighbourhood Area on 26th May 2016 (Figure 1).

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 2 www.wyg.com

Figure 1 – Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Plan Area

2.3 Preparation of the Neighbourhood Development Plan

2.3.1 Preparation of the NDP was carried out between May 2017 and December 2017, following extensive consultation led by CCS in 2016 and an update at the Annual Parish Council meeting in April 2017 where the shared vision and objectives for the NDP were agreed.

2.3.2 The pre-submission Regulation 14 consultation draft of the NDP was published in December 2017, with consultation running from 8th December 2017 until 2nd February (and eight week period).

2.3.3 Full details of the scope and methodology for consultation which informed the preparation of the NDP at all stages is included within Section 3 of this statement.

2.3.4 The draft NDP has been submitted to TDBC with the required supporting documents, including this Consultation Statement, in full accordance with Regulation 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 3 www.wyg.com

3.0 Consultation Scope and Methodology

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Consultation was undertaken at every stage of the development of the NDP with the aim of establishing the issues affecting the local community, and the longer-term vision and objectives for the NDP area.

3.1.2 A full list of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed NDP can be found at Appendix A of this statement, in accordance with the requirements of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

3.2 Stage 1: Inception

3.2.1 Initiation of the NDP was first led by Creech St Michael Parish Council who made the application to designate the Neighbourhood Plan Area, as discussed at paragraph 2.3 of this statement.

3.2.2 Following the designation of the Neighbourhood Plan Area, a Neighbourhood Plan Panel (the “Panel”) was selected which included voluntary Councillors and residents, along with representatives from WYG and CCS to provide technical support.

3.2.3 Panel meetings have occurred on a regular basis (generally monthly) from May 2016 onwards and these meetings are open to the public. Full copies of the meeting minutes can be obtained at the following link:

http://www.creechstmichael.net/parish-council/creech-neighbourhood-plan/

3.3 Stage 2: Pre-vision consultation

3.3.1 Extensive consultation was undertaken to highlight current issues and priorities for the Neighbourhood Plan Area. This was with the intention of establishing an over-arching vision for the NDP which would in turn draw out relevant policies and actions to achieve this vision in the longer term.

3.3.2 The following consultation activities were carried out:

• Community Survey (November 2017) – a wide ranging survey was sent to all households in the parish.

• Business Survey (January 2017) – a survey was sent to 64 employers based in the Parish

• Youth Survey (February 2017)

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 4 www.wyg.com

• Primary School Survey (January 2017)

• Secondary School Survey (March 2017)

• Annual Parish Meeting (April 2017) - a meeting that was open to all residents of the Parish where an update on the project was provided, further consultation was carried out on the methodology and findings to date and agreement reached on the validity of the outcome of consultation.

A full list of all those consulted within the activities listed under paragraph 3.3.2 can be found at Appendix A of this statement.

3.3.3 At the Annual Parish Meeting on 26th April 2017, the vision for the NDP was agreed and work commenced on drafting the NDP itself.

3.4 Stage 3: Technical evidence base

3.4.1 In addition to the activities outlined above the preparation of the Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Development Plan has also taken into account a wide range of other evidence. The full evidence base consulted during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Development Plan is listed below:

Housing Needs Survey

3.4.2 Creech St Michael Parish Council commissioned a Housing Needs Survey to gather views of the residents of Creech St Michael to determine whether there is a need for affordable housing in the area. The survey was carried out in August 2017 by TDBC. The results of the survey are available on the Parish Council website and a full copy has been submitted to support the submission of the draft NDP under Regulation 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended). The main findings are reproduced below.

3.4.3 1,261 survey questionnaires were circulated to every household in the Parish and 308 responses were returned, representing a response rate of 24%.

3.4.4 Based on the analysis of the information received, none of the respondents were identified to be in high priority housing need. However, it is noteworthy that:

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 5 www.wyg.com

• 11 people indicated that they may be interested in Low Cost Home Ownership options, including Discounted Open Market and Shared Ownership properties.

• A reasonable level of interest was also expressed in Shared Ownership houses and the financial information submitted appears to support their suitability for this.

• 11 people indicated that they may be interested in Low Cost Home Ownership options, including Discounted Open Market and Shared Ownership properties.

• There were 9 current homeowners who stated that they would be interested in a small bungalow/flat in the future, which includes instances of specific adaptations.

3.4.5 While a low level of affordable housing need was identified, taking into consideration the existing housing options available within the Parish, it is recommended that a fresh housing needs survey is undertaken every 3-5 years to reassess the housing need within the Parish.

Ecology Survey

3.4.6 The Parish Council commissioned WYG to undertake desk studies and walkover surveys from publicly accessible land on the centre of the parish, to identify areas likely to support protected and notable species and habitats, and key wildlife corridors across the landscape. Full copies of the ecology surveys have been submitted alongside the draft NDP to support its submission under Regulation 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

3.4.7 The wider area around Creech St Michael includes internationally designated sites at Hestercombe House Special Area of Conservation (approximately 3km to the north west), which is designated due to the presence of a lesser horseshoe bat maternity colony in the Vale of Taunton Deane; and the Somerset Level and Moors (approximately 2km to the east), designated as a Special Protection Area as it supports populations of European importance of Bewick’s swan, golden plover, shoveler, teal and wigeon and various waterfowl, and a RAMSAR site.

3.4.8 Locally designated sites in the wider area include the River Tone and tributaries, and the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal, both of which provide east – west habitat corridors.

3.4.9 The area is particularly important for bats, including rarer species such as greater and lesser horseshoe bats and barbastelle bats. They will generally make use of darker habitats such as woodlands, hedgerows, unimproved grassland and waterways to foraging and commute around the landscape and their territory can be extensive and connected by habitat corridors.

3.4.10 The waterways support water voles and otters, and may support bird species associated with the nearby Somerset Levels. Hedgerows and woodlands provide habitat for species such as dormice, hedgehogs and

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 6 www.wyg.com

reptiles as well as a number of notable bird species. Unimproved grassland could support species such as birds, orchids, reptiles and invertebrate species.

3.4.11 Key considerations are ensuring that the integrity of the nearby internationally designated sites is retained, so that habitat remain available in the wider area for the bats and birds associated with these sites to use.

3.4.12 Within the village of Creech St Michael, the retention and buffering of complex habitats and linear features such as the River Tone and its tributaries, the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal, patches of woodland, unimproved grassland, and mature hedgerows will help to maintain wildlife corridors and stepping stones across the landscape for protected and notable species. This is essential to allow species dispersal, given that climate change is already affecting the population and range of many UK species.

3.4.13 These landscape scale features will also require buffering from indirect impacts such as increases in lighting or disturbance. Where a feature (such as a building or a hedgerow) is found to be used by some of the rarer bat species for roosting, foraging or commuting, larger stand-offs are likely to be required to preserve dark corridors across the landscape. Equally, if bird species associated with the nearby Special Protection Area are found to be making use of areas of grassland or water ways, these features may then have elevated biodiversity importance.

3.4.14 Creating new native species woodlands, hedgerows, species rich grassland and water bodies within any proposals will help to maintain and extend ecological connectivity.

Green Wedge Assessment

3.4.15 This assessment has been carried out to provide a robust evidence base for the inclusion of Policy CSM11 (Green Wedge). It includes full justification for the designation of green wedges within the NDP along with a consistent methodology to identify appropriate land to be included within the green wedge which has been assessed against key criteria, mirroring the approach taken for TDBC’s Core Strategy Policy CP8 which aims to protect environmental assets from detrimental effects as a result of new development.

3.4.16 The Green Wedge Assessment has been submitted alongside the draft NDP to support its submission under Regulation 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

3.4.17 It is worthwhile noting at this stage that the Green Wedge Assessment, as with consultation activities, is an ongoing and iterative process which is then asummarised within the assessment itself towards the end of the process. Therefore, the date of the assessment should not be taken as the inception of Policy CSM11 which has been formulated based on discussions with TDBC in 2017 and tested throughout the drafting and consultation of the NDP.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 7 www.wyg.com

SEA Screening Request

3.4.18 A request for screening of the NDP under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 was requested by the Panel to TDBC on 12th January 2018.

3.4.19 A Screening Report under both pieces of legislation produced by LEPUS Consulting on behalf of TDBC concluded that the NDP is not a project required to be subject to Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment or Appropriate Assessment.

3.4.20 Formal comments on the Screening Report have been received by statutory consultees and are supplied within the Environmental Report required under Regulation 15(2) of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

3.5 Stage 4: Pre-submission Regulation 14 draft NDP

3.5.1 Following consultation and agreement of the over-arching vision for the NDP, drafting was carried out by WYG in consultation with the Panel between May and December 2017.

3.5.2 A pre-submission draft NDP was published on 8th December 2017, and in accordance with Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, consultation was carried out until 2nd February 2018, allowing an extended period of eight weeks for comments to be received. A summary of comments and changes made to the NDP as a result (where applicable) are contained at Section 4.3.

3.5.3 Section 4 of this statement summarises the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted and describes how they have been considered, and where relevant addressed in the proposed NDP.

3.6 Stage 5: Further evidence base consultation

Taking on board some of the comments received as part of the Regulation 14 consultation, it was considered important to allow the evidence base documents that underpin NDP Policies CSM3 and CSM11.

The comments received are summarised

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 8 www.wyg.com

4.0 Main Issues and Concerns

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Responses received at all stages of the consultation process have been collated and summarised. They have formed an integral part of defining the vision and objectives and preparing the NDP. Summaries of the main issues and concerns raised at each stage can be found at Appendix C and D.

4.1.2 This section describes how the issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the NDP.

4.2 Pre-vision consultation

4.2.1 A summary of the responses received to the consultation exercises carried out under paragraph 3.3.2 of this statement can be found at Appendix C. The main issues and concerns raised, and where they have been considered and addressed, can be found within the tables below:

Road Safety and Transport

Issue identified Where is it considered in the Plan?

Major concern over road safety Policies CSM1, CSM2 and Community Action Plan

Range of specific parking and highway related issues Policies CSM1 and CSM2 and Community identified Action Plan

Concern over volume of traffic, ‘rat running’ and speeding Policies CSM1 and CSM2

Footpath required on canal bridge, rail bridge, from North Policy CSM1 and Community Action Plan End to Creech Heathfield, along A38 from Sedgemoor to Taunton

Need for community speed watch group Community Action Plan

Need to improve access in a number of locations Policy CSM2 and Community Action Plan

Need for more frequent bus service and link to park and Section 4 rides and Musgrove Hospital

Access to Hyde Lane and West Monkton Relief Road CSM2

Need to retain opportunity to create J24a at Walford Community Action Plan

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 9 www.wyg.com

Support J25 and Castle Creech junction improvements Community Action Plan

Housing

Issue identified Where is it considered in the Plan?

New buildings should be in-keeping with the existing Policy CSM4 rural/village feel

Green spaces should be provided with new housing Policy CSM4

Housing should be of different styles and character and lower Policy CSM3 and CSM4 density

Housing should be tailored to meet needs of the elderly and Policy CSM3 disabled, including sheltered housing and bungalows

Starter homes, family housing and affordable housing are Policy CSM3 required, including homes for rent and shared ownership

Affordable homes should not be distinguished from market Policy CSM3 and CSM4 housing and pepper potted across developments

Sufficient parking is required for new homes Policy CSM7 and Section 4

Demand for self-build plots Policy CSM3

Support for sustainability measures in new buildings Policy CSM4

Concern about the level of development proposed Section 4

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 10 www.wyg.com

Business and Employment

Issue identified Where is it considered in the Plan?

No real demand for industrial units identified amongst existing Policies CSM5 business, but need for business start-up units, office space, lock ups as identified by community survey

Need to provide for agriculture and traditional/artisan trades, Policies CSM5 leisure, fitness/wellbeing, restaurant/food, light industrial and manufacturing

Make most of existing business sites i.e. Mill Lane and Walford Policies CSM7 Cross

Transport/access issues for businesses i.e. parking and Junction Policy CSM7 and Section 4 25 access

Need for infrastructure to support/attract business e.g. high speed Community Action Plan broadband

Provision of additional retail space Policy CSM5

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 11 www.wyg.com

Young People

Issue identified Where is it considered in the Plan?

Existing sporting activities highly valued Policy CSM8

More open areas needed Policy CSM13

Youth Club needed (11-16 age group in particular identified) Community Action Plan

More activities for young people needed Community Action Plan

Age specific recreational areas Policy CSM9

Other facilities needed for young people Community Action Plan

More community events Community Action Plan

Involvement in community orchard and allotments Community Action Plan

Need for a voice for young people – could establish a youth Community Action Plan council

Issues with anti-social behaviour impacting on use of Community Action Plan community spaces

Concern over speeding and need for speed cameras Policies CSM1, CSM2 and Community Action Plan

Need for improved public transport links to Taunton Section 4

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 12 www.wyg.com

Community Spirit

Issue identified Where is it considered in the Plan?

Improve communication Community Action Plan

Create a village centre(s), including a village green Community Action Plan

Set up more clubs e.g. sports, youth etc Community Action Plan

Encourage a sense of pride in the parish keeping it clean and Community Action Plan litter and dog mess free

Encourage community cohesion Policy CSM6 and Community Action Plan

Encourage volunteering Community Action Plan

More social events including those run when more people can Community Action Plan attend

Encourage attendance at Parish Council meetings Community Action Plan

Management of existing resources within parish Community Action Plan

Set up a community café Community Action Plan

More shops and other places to meet Policy CSM7

Provide a more family orientated pub Community Action Plan

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 13 www.wyg.com

Facilities and Services

Issue identified Where is considered in the Plan?

Existing local facilities and services are very important to the Policies CSM7, CSM8 and CSM12 community

The need for a range of additional facilities was identified Policy CSM7 and CSM9

Enhance the shop, pharmacy, village school and village to Section 4 and Policy CSM7 meet future demand

Broadband - improvements and access in all areas of the Community Action Plan Parish

Improvements required to existing play areas Policy CSM12

Additional GP capacity and dentists etc needed to support Section 4 expansion

Additional cycle ways required Policy CSM1

Support the delivery of additional facilities in the new urban Section 4 development

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 14 www.wyg.com

Environment

Issue identified Where is considered in the Plan?

Flooding – issues with roads, flood risk and need for alleviation TDBC Core Strategy Policy CP8

Walford Stream and high pressure gas main in development Section 4 area

Protect local heritage Policy CSM10

Need village gateways Community Action Plan and Policy CSM14

Protect key areas for recreation and that contribute to Policy CSM12 and CSM14 character

Noise and air quality issues associated with M5 Community Action Plan

Impact of development and infrastructure projects during Section 4 construction

Need to protect and enhance biodiversity Section 4 and Policy CSM14

Support for sustainability measures in new buildings Policy CSM4

Opportunity to harvest water power on River Tone Community Action Plan

Maintenance and development of existing and new footpaths Community Action Plan

Importance of rural setting and links to countryside Policy CSM14

Open Spaces

Issue identified Where is considered in the Plan?

Open and green spaces make an important contribution to the Policy CSM12 rural identity of the area and should be protected

Village identity should be maintained Policies CSM4 and CSM14

School Field, Rec Ground, fields between canal and railway Policy CSM 12 and CSM14 and space between villages should be maintained

Concern over anti-social behaviour Community Action Plan

Screening of M5 with trees Community Action Plan

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 15 www.wyg.com

Open spaces needed to be provided within the new Section 4 and Policy CSM13 development areas

Recreation fields in new development should be grouped Section 4 together with facilities (e.g. pavilion) and not dispersed across the development

Recreation

Issue identified Where is considered in the Plan?

Improved/additional facilities required Policy CSM9

More play equipment required in the park Community Action Plan

Foot/cycle way improvements suggested including footbridge Policy CSM1 over the canal, linking Petherton to Bathpool to CSM onto Ruishton and Sainsbury’s, the Junction 25 employment park, CSM Hamlets to CSM

Stiles should be replaced with gates Community Action Plan

Slipway needed beside canal car park Community Action Plan

Improve parking at the canal and rec park Community Action Plan

Kayak/canoe storage Community Action Plan

Concern over ‘urbanisation’ of the canal Community Action Plan

Create opportunities for canal towpath for dog walking and Community Action Plan cycling

Additional allotments are required Community Action Plan

4.3 Regulation 14 pre-submission draft consultation

4.3.1 The pre-submission consultation was carried out between 8th December 2017 and 2nd February 2018. A summary of the responses received, the Panel’s response and modifications to the plan where relevant are set out in the table below:

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 16 www.wyg.com

Respondent: Summary of the key issues / concerns: Relevant policy / NDP Panel response theme: and proposed changes to the NDP (where relevant):

Bishops Hull There is nothing that adversely affects the Bishops Hull Parish in the plan. N/A None Parish Council

Brenda Disappointed to see under CSM 4 - Quality of Design it states "be limited to Policy CSM4 Policy CS4 to be reworded Brighton two/two and a half storey". to “…limited to I feel very strongly that any future development should have very limited predominantly 2 storeys, numbers of two and a half storey houses, otherwise the village will end up with the potential for up to surrounded and dwarfed, just like an old fashioned castle wall, by these two and a half storey at incredibly tall and very dominating buildings which are not in keeping with the appropriate locations” original properties in the village. My point is evidenced by the current Larkfleet Rise development - dominating The NDP does not include and tall, the original owners of the houses have lost a lovely country view. The any residential allocations, same applies to the Hopkins Field development, the design of the houses is tall however, comments in and dominating and they over shadow the properties in West View, as do the respect of previous original David Wilson Homes. I realise that a precedent has been set but now is applications are noted. the time with the NP to try and limit any further "dwarfing" of our village and to have new houses which are more in keeping etc. On planning applications the PC have commented in the past that more small bungalows are a housing requirement for the village, and as nationally, there is also a shortage of one or two bedroom starter homes in the village. We do not need more 3, 4 and 5 detached bedroom homes which is always what the developers want to build as they make more money but it's the younger generations of the village we need to make homes available/accessible for. I would, therefore, like to see under Quality of Design something like "to be limited to one/two storey houses with a restricted number of two and a half storey".

The vision for the neighbourhood plan area to remain ‘rural, peaceful and green’ John Reid obviously sets out that the Plan is simply an attempt to prevent development NDP Section 6.0 (Vision Comments in respect of rather than in line with the original intention of the Government legislation. and Objectives) the vision have been

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 17 www.wyg.com

noted and reviewed. The In my opinion the most likely direction of growth for Taunton will be east and vision has been amended will include the village of Creech St Michael. If the neighbourhood plan seeks to to reflect and address the lock-up land which ought to be developed this is only likely to contribute to comments received. urban sprawl as new development, simply leapfrogs ‘protected areas’ and moves further east. This vision is therefore in direct contradiction to a logical approach It is considered that the to development. vision is in general conformity (and certainly does not preclude or conflict) with the current adopted Development Plan (TDBC Core Strategy), taking into account the designation of the Minor Rural Centres and Smaller Villages of settlements within the Parish and Vision 4 for the Rural Areas.

The comments in relation to direction of growth are noted, however, are not based on current local policy considerations.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 18 www.wyg.com

John Reid The first of the objectives within the Neighbourhood plan is “To deliver housing NDP Section 6.0 (Vision Specific site allocations growth that is tailored to the needs of the Parish as a whole”. The important word and Objectives) have been included within in that sentence, growth, appears to have been entirely ignored in considering the adopted TDBC the way in which the Plan should be developed. The plan has failed to even Development Policies DPD consider the possibility of allocating any development sites other than those which which delivery well over are already forming part of the Taunton Deane Local Plan. On that basis the half of the dwelling Neighbourhood Plan singularly fails in this first objective which has been set. allowance for Creech St Michael village – of these sites all are either complete or nearing completion. Given this high delivery to date, it is not considered necessary to include further specific residential allocations within the NDP.

Rather, the NDP seeks to provide a positive framework to guide future development proposals to ensure that the overarching vision and objectives are achieved.

The NDP policies will contribute to the delivery of sustainable development and the NDP vision and objectives.

John Reid It also fails to consider the timescale of the Plan which is proposed for a period NDP Section 6.0 (Vision Agreed – the vision from 2017-2028. It is therefore out of date before it has even been considered and Objectives) considers a period of 20 by an inspector or put to referendum. years, therefore the plan period should reflect this and be extended until 2038. The NDP has been amended as such.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 19 www.wyg.com

John Reid The intention of the Neighbourhood Plan committee was clear from the beginning General Extensive consultation has in the way that the initial neighbourhood plan survey was designed and been carried out over a conducted. In that respect, asking residents whether certain fields around the period of approximately 18 village should be “protected” from development is only likely to result in the months using a variety of obvious response. It is in fact telling that the following was concluded “Opinion is methods and forums as strong surrounding all the locations suggested, with more than half of all discussed in this respondents feeling all locations should all benefit from protection from new Consultation Statement. It development in the future.” I would suggest that the reason for this is that the is therefore considered question was entirely loaded from the beginning and underlines a fundamental that the consultation flaw in the consultation which was undertaken. process has been undertaken robustly and in The consultation also queried, (amongst others,) whether trees should be planted accordance with the Basic alongside the motorway to reduce noise, and raised questions about improved Conditions tests required walking, road and cycle routes. All of these would inevitably be of significant under Part 5 of the benefit to the village and wider area, however they cannot be delivered without Neighbourhood Planning the assistance of landowners and in most cases alongside new development. It is (General) Regulations therefore clear that insufficient thought has gone into how the policies of the (2012), as amended. neighbourhood plan may be delivered. No changes to the NDP are proposed.

John Reid Policy CSM 10 seeks to protect sites which have been designated as Assets of Policy CSM10 These comments relate to Community Value. It is clear that some of these sites should never have been the designation of land designated as ACVs as they are agricultural land which should not be used by and buildings as Assets of the public other than via the public footpaths. This is another example of the Community Value which is Parish and Neighbourhood plan seeking to prevent development and an abuse covered under separate of the ACV process. legislation Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 and is not relevant to the NDP process.

No changes to the NDP are proposed.

John Reid Policy CSM 14 identifies a proposed Green Wedge which should be removed from Policy CSM14 Land designated under the Plan as it contravenes National Policy and seeks to introduce a strategic policy Policy CSM14 has been which is outside the remit of neighbourhood plans. The Green Wedge is positioned subject to a Green Wedge

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 20 www.wyg.com

on land which forms the logical direction of growth for Creech St Michael. It is Assesment in line with the therefore a blatant attempt to prevent development by NIMBYs. It is also telling methodology used by that this Policy was integrated at a late point in the Neighbourhood plan following TDBC when designating the Gladman planning application, thus providing further evidence of the intention Green Wedges through behind the neighbourhood plan. In my opinion this policy should be removed from adopted TDBC Core the plan as it fails to stand up to scrutiny. Strategy Policy CP8. The Green Wedge Assessment provides robust justification for the inclusion of Policy CSM 14.

No changes to the NDP are proposed.

John Reid The neighbourhood plan should be reconsidered to plan for growth in line with General. Specific site allocations national policy in order that the plan area may benefit from the benefits which have been included within may be delivered from development. the adopted TDBC Development Policies DPD which delivery well over half of the dwelling allowance for Creech St Michael village – of these sites all are either complete or nearing completion. Given this high delivery to date, it is not considered necessary to include further specific residential allocations within the NDP.

Rather, the NDP seeks to provide a positive framework to guide future development proposals to ensure that the overarching vision and objectives are achieved.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 21 www.wyg.com

The NDP policies will contribute to the delivery of sustainable development and the NDP vision and objectives.

No changes to the NDP are proposed.

Environment Within this plan are areas of Flood Zone 3 and 2 which are at high and medium General. No built development Agency probability of flooding. Flood Zone 3 has an indicative annual probability of allocations are proposed flooding in 1 in 100 years or less from river sources (i.e. it has a 1% or greater within the NDP, however chance of flooding in any given year). Flood Zone 2 has an indicative annual these comments are probability of flooding between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 years from river sources noted. (i.e. between 1% and 0.1% chance in any given year). No changes to the NDP We would recommend that new development does not occur within these areas are proposed. and is steered to low flood risk areas. We would expect this to be encouraged through the planning process and Sequential Test as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Flood Risk Assessment’s would be required for any new development that is sited within the floodplain. The FRA would be required to demonstrate the proposal is not at risk from flooding, and that there is no increase in risk for any third parties. This would be for the lifetime of development and include an allowance for climate change.

Sustainable drainage systems/techniques (SuDs) should be used for any development to reduce runoff, improve water quality, and benefit biodiversity and aesthetics.

Please note that under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws, prior written consent is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of a watercourse.

River corridors should be valued for wildlife and amenity reasons

Finally, there are historic landfill sites within the Neighbourhood Plan. For any development on or within 250 metres of a landfill site, the developer will need to

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 22 www.wyg.com

take account of their proximity in relation to the possibility of landfill gas, which once again may result in development being considered inappropriate.

Somerset We note that there are several references to smaller transport improvement Policy CSM1, CSM2, CSM6, Support welcomed and County schemes within your proposed planning policies. We appreciate that these are CSM7 comments noted. Council – currently just proposals and therefore feel it is not appropriate to fully comment Transport at this stage. Any schemes that are progressed should go through the normal No changes to the NDP Lead processes as outlined in the Traffic Choices website. The Traffic Choices website are proposed. gives information on the process of how to address most transport issues highlighted in the document and includes information on:

• Cycle and walking improvements (policy CSM 1 & CSM 6); • Pedestrian safety (CSM 7); • Speed issues, such as speed limits and traffic calming (outlined in Community Action Plan); • Parking issues (CSM 7). www.trafficchoices.co.uk/somerset

With regards to the development of a Traffic Management Plan - it would be good to be engaged in that process

Lynn Gates Paragraph 3.1.13 makes reference to the Maypole Inn. This hostelry is not Section 3.0 Area Profile Comment noted reviewed. within the Parish of Creech St Michael and therefore should not be included. The Maypole Inn is located Unfortunately, we have just the one pub. within the Parish of Creech St Michael, therefore, no changes required to the NDP.

Lynn Gates There is no mention of traffic calming measures for West View which has seen a Policy CSM2 Noted and agreed. This significant increase of traffic since the introduction of speed bumps in St will be included within Michaels Road and even more so since the building of the David Wilson and Policy CSM2. Larkfleet houses. The speed of vehicles is also of concern to residents.

Historic We note and commend the objective of the Plan to protect and enhance the NDP Section 6.0 (Vision Support welcomed. England area’s distinctive historic character through the regime of policies and proposals and Objectives) it promotes. The plan is submitted in full accordance with the

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 23 www.wyg.com

The Plan does not allocate sites for development, which are often the source of provisions of Part 5 of the issues affecting the historic environment on which we feel obliged to comment, Neighbourhood Planning deferring significantly in the issue of new development to the recently allocated (General) Regulations urban extension, details on which are set out in the Core Strategy. In this 2012 (as amended) and respect the community has decided not to formulate additional policies which this does not include a might finesse this high level policy provision and set out more specifically its specific requirement for a preferred outcomes to assist in negotiations with developers and others. design guide. Further, the NDP does not include any We are conscious that this consultation is at an advanced stage in the Plan specific policies in respect preparation process and the community understandably may as a consequence of the Monkton Heathfield not feel inclined to engage in more than incidental review if its contents. But we Urban Extension which is have been consulted on other neighbourhood plans for areas which are the to be delivered through subject of significant urban extensions where the community has deliberately adopted policies in the carried out exercises to provide evidence with which to inform development TDBC Core Strategy. proposals and neighbourhood plan policies to ensure they respond sensitively to and reinforce locally defining character. These often take the form of village No changes to the NDP design statements; Gillingham in Dorset commissioned a Design Statement in are proposed. support of its Plan, for example.

We note the schedule of projects set out in the Community Action Plan, which include ones for the physical enhancement of the area, and that it is expected that these will be delivered by the community. With such large development envisaged there is an opportunity to explore how these aspirations might be realised through developer contributions, such as via Community Infrastructure Levy. If nothing else your community might wish to consider how its Plan can tighten up its expectations as far as financial connectivity or deliverability associated with the urban extension is concerned, and perhaps prioritise its list of projects to assist in determining the preferred outcome of any eventual negotiations.

Otherwise, it only remains for us to congratulate the community on its progress to date and wish it well in the making of its Plan.

TDBC Consider what information from the NDP can be omitted and placed in the NDP general Noted. The Panel is supporting documents (Basic Conditions Statement, Consultation Statement, content with the scope of etc.) the NDP and no further changes are proposed in this respect.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 24 www.wyg.com

TDBC Remove all references to “what comes next” or “what stage we’re at now” NDP general Noted, agreed and amended to reflect comments.

TDBC Include more images, maps and diagrams where relevant, and ensure that NDP general Noted, agreed and sources are quoted. Incorporate maps/diagrams into the document rather than amended to reflect as appendices where practicable. comments.

TDBC Reference all supporting documents and append all evidence base NDP general Noted, agreed and amended to reflect comments.

Evidence base documents have been retained separately to keep the document size manageable.

TDBC Include an explanation of why community assets have been nominated and re- CSM10 Comments noted and word key for Plan 1 agreed. Further justification provided with CSM10.

TDBC Show Hestercombe SAC and bat consultation zone on plan 7 Plan 7 Noted and agreed. Plan 7 Differentiate different typologies of priority habitat i.e. Upland birch, Upland has been updated Mixed Ash Woodland, etc.) accordingly.

TDBC Include ecology information supplied from recent planning applications Section 3 Noted and agreed. Section 3 has been updated accordingly.

TDBC Show any existing TDBC Green Space designations Section 3 Noted and agreed. Section 3 has been updated accordingly.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 25 www.wyg.com

TDBC Examiner will want to see each local green space and sport/leisure facility on an Plan 9 Noted and agreed. Plan 9 OS base with defined boundary at an appropriate scale and a description of how has been updated it meets the relevant criteria accordingly.

TDBC Make it clear that Policy CSM4 does not apply to the Urban Extension CSM4 Noted and agreed. Supporting text for Policy CSM4 has been amended accordingly.

TDBC Consider adding an “or not” before the penultimate criterion to reflect that the Policy CSM5 Noted, agreed and policy covers more than just start up units amended accordingly.

TDBC Re-word CSM8 more positively so that it is compliant with TDBC SADMP Policy CSM8 Noted, agreed and amended accordingly.

TDBC Ensure consistency in terms of items listed in CSM8 and Plan 9 Policy CSM8 and Plan 9 Noted, agreed and Plan 9 amended accordingly.

TDBC Consider listing specific projects within Policy CSM9 and CSM7 Policy CSM9 and Policy Specific projects under CSM7 CSM7 are intended to be listed within the future Public Realm Improvement Plan.

Specific projects have not been listed under CSM9 in order to maintain flexibility around the delivery of future recreational schemes that may present as opportunities.

TDBC General point throughout – ensure that the document is clear if something is in General Noted, agreed and relation to the NDP area or areas outside of it. Ensure projects specified come amended where relevant.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 26 www.wyg.com

within the NDP area. Do all public realm projects within CSM7 fall within the village centre identified on Plan 12?

TDBC Cross check and reference any neighbouring policies where routes/projects have CSM1 Noted and agreed. been identified which cross over into CSM NDP area, particularly in relation to Supporting text for CSM1 CSM1. CSM1 – consider what types of development should be subject to this updated accordingly. policy, currently it would be all i.e. household extensions, etc.

TDBC CSM4 – define the local character and important green spaces between Policy CSM4 Comments noted and buildings using character appraisal methodologies and images where relevant agreed. Section 3 has been updated accordingly.

TDBC CSM 2 Traffic Management Plan: it is something that you wish to develop with CSM2 Noted, support for CSM2 is others to address wider impacts in the Parish. We would suggest speaking contained in the response with Somerset County Council (SCC) and getting their agreement and support from Somerset County for this approach Highways as part of the Regulation 14 consultation

TDBC Clarify why facilities identified in Policy CSM8 are important to the community CSM8 and CSM12 Noted and agreed, and consider whether some may be afforded better protection as a local green supporting text for CSM8 space provided that they meet the criteria. Factual correction required within has been amended and Policy CSM12 – local green spaces are designated through the NDP so remove CSM12 amended word “existing”. accordingly.

TDBC Green wedge must be evidenced (use TDBC methodology) and accompanying CSM14 Noted and agreed. A plan should include a key Green Wedge Assessment has been prepared and made available for consultation in March 2018.

TDBC Projects under CSM7 aren’t yet tangible and may be better placed within the CSM7 Noted but not agreed. The Community Action Plan policy does not place additional burden on

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 27 www.wyg.com

developers and helps to define priorities for expenditure of the meaningful proportion of CIL receipts.

No changes to the NDP are proposed.

TDBC Areas on Plan 9 should be listed under Policy CSM12 (not CSM13) and the two Policy CSM12 and CSM13 Noted, agreed, ND policies amalgamated and justified to stand up to EiP scrutiny amended accordingly.

TDBC Is there any objective evidence to support CSM3? CSM3 Evidence to support CSM3 is contained within the Housing Needs Assessment which forms part of the evidence base for the NDP. West Monkton &

TDBC CSM6 community welcome pack, is this more of an aspiration rather than a CSM6 We consider that Policy land-use matter? It is enforceable though planning? Have you got buy-in from CSM6 reflects the broader developers? principles of Core Strategy Policy CP5 and does not place an unacceptable viability burden on new major developments. We propose to retain Policy CSM6 as currently worded.

TDBC Delete Policy CSM11 (erroneous numbering) CSM11 Noted, agreed and amended accordingly.

TDBC Consider using more data about local businesses to support case (sources Section 3 and Policy CSM5 Noted and agreed, Section supplied by Ann Rhodes) 3 and justification with

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 28 www.wyg.com

Policy CSM5 amended accordingly.

Highways The Vision and Objectives section is clear and well structured. NDP Section 6.0 (Vision Support welcomed. England and Objectives) We support the Parish Council’s proposed objective to ensure sensitive and No changes to the NDP sustainable development which protects, enhances and enriches the landscape are proposed. of the parish (6.2.1), as this will help contribute to the wider Taunton Deane policies of reducing the reliance on the private car. In general we support those policies which encourage travel by sustainable modes.

We also welcome the objective at 8.1.9 which seeks to promote opportunities for walking and cycling within Creech St Michael Parish and to other destinations including Taunton and existing and planned employment areas. In broad terms, we welcome measures which improve local employment opportunities that reduce the need for outward commuting.

We welcome the Council’s aim of maintaining a sustainable neighbourhood and wish you every success in the delivery of your Neighbourhood Plan.

Ted and Jane We are impressed with the document that has been prepared and with the plans General Support welcomed. Ewens for the village especially the concept of a Green Wedge between the M5 and the village. We believe it is particularly important that the village remains a distinct No changes to the NDP village and is not swallowed into Monkton Heathfield. are proposed.

This plan is a good start.

We would like to think that the plan will not be put on the shelf but becomes a developing plan owned by the community. Indeed different aspects of the plan could be owned and developed by different organisations, individuals or teams in the village with the whole owned, regularly reviewed and developed by the Parish Council.

Persimmon Welcome and acknowledge at para 4.1.6 that the NDP does not propose any Section 4.0 Urban Support welcomed. Homes specific policies for the Monkton Heathfield Urban Extension. Extension to Taunton No changes to the NDP are proposed.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 29 www.wyg.com

Persimmon Helpful for the purposes of clarification if at the conclusion of the introduction an Introduction Agreed. Suggested change Homes added paragraph be added to record the ongoing work to develop existing Policy has been made. SS1, to explain why the NDP does not propose any specific policies for the Monkton Heathfield Urban Extension.

Persimmon Reference to reserved matters approvals process at paragraph 4.2.5 is incorrect Section 4.0 Urban Agreed. Suggested change Homes because the aspects of design would be covered in a new master plan with Extension to Taunton has been made. design parameters yet to be agreed with TDBC.

Persimmon Paragraph 8.1.4 and CSM2 refer to traffic management and residual traffic Policy CSM2 Support welcomed. Homes effects of delivering the allocation, it should be borne in mind that the allocation at Policy SS1 as adopted provides the delivery of Town wide transport policies, No changes to the NDP the provision of bus gates, the Western Relief Road, and Park and Ride are proposed. provision. At the time of writing neither the Parish or Consortium are able to evaluate these. The detailed strategy of TDBC of the Park and Ride elements are unknown. Equally the impact of changes to the Park and Ride facilities at Nexus 25 are in a state of flux. At paragraph 8.1.8 the NDP the Parish propose to take the lead on developing a traffic management plan. The Parish Council support for the production of the management plan is laudable and the inclusion of this is welcomes to provide a more holistic approach.

Gladman Do not consider that the vision for the Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Plan NDP Section 6.0 (Vision Comments in respect of area is appropriate and consistent with the requirement of national policy and Objectives) the vision have been guidance - particular concern that the vision for the neighbourhood plan area is noted and reviewed. The to remain ‘rural, peaceful and green’. Given the direct of growth, and strategic vision has been amended allocations within the plan area, set out in the adopted Core Strategy, we to reflect and address the consider that this vision is in direct contradiction to the development plan. comments received.

It is considered that the vision is in general conformity (and certainly does not preclude or conflict) with the current adopted Development Plan (TDBC Core Strategy), taking into account the designation of the Minor

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 30 www.wyg.com

Rural Centres and Smaller Villages of settlements within the Parish and Vision 4 for the Rural Areas.

Gladman Policy CSM3 references a Creech St Michael Housing Needs Survey (August Evidence base Agreed. The Housing 2017) as the primary evidence supporting this policy, as a matter of urgency the Needs Survey was Housing Needs Survey must be made available for public viewing. subsequently made available for consultation in March 2018.

Gladman Recognise the importance of high quality design, however planning policies Policy CSM4 Not agreed. Policy CSM4 should not be overly prescriptive and need flexibility in order for schemes to does not include respond to site specifics and the character of the local area. There will not be a prescriptive requirements ‘one size fits all’ solution in relation to design and sites should be considered on and instead sets broad a site by site basis with consideration given to various design principles. parameters for design More flexibility should be provided in the policy wording to ensure that a high considerations within new quality and inclusive design is not compromised by aesthetic requirements alone development proposals. and to take into account viability. Regard should be had to paragraph 60 of the NPPF which states that, "Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to Policy CSM4 has regard to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle NPPF paragraphs 56-62 innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to and is in general conform to certain development forms or styles". conformity with adopted TDBC Core Strategy DM1 and TDBC SADMP Policy D7.

No changes to the NDP are proposed.

Gladman Policy CSM 6 includes the provision of a welcome pack for all new residents. Policy CSM6 Not agreed. The Whilst the intention to maximise community cohesion is recognised as being requirement for a welcome very important and a practice supported in general, we remind the Parish pack is sufficiently broad Council that policies should not include requirements that would create enough to allow flexibility unreasonable financial burden and could potentially act to render an otherwise in terms of compliance sustainable development proposal unviable. The policy should include a with its provisions depending on the scale

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 31 www.wyg.com

recognition that such requirements should only be applied if demonstrably and nature of the viable. development proposals.

The policy is in general conformity with adopted TDBC Core Strategy Policy CP5

No changes to the NDP are proposed.

Gladman Policy CSM 14 is considered a strategic policy beyond the remit of Policy CSM14 Policy CSM14 is evidenced neighbourhood plans that would have the effect of imposing a blanket restriction through the Green Wedge on development to the west of Creech St Michael. It would effectively offer the Assessment. It has regard same level of protection as Green Belt land without undertaking the necessary to NPPF paragraphs and is exceptional circumstances test for the designation of new areas of Green Belt. in general conformity with This is contrary to PPG paragraph 0743 and would undermine the strategic adopted TDBC Core policies set out in the development plan. Strategy Policies CP6, SP1, Further, the PPG makes clear that neighbourhood plans should not contain SP2, Vision 2 and Vision 4 policies restricting housing development in settlements or preventing other and reflects the principles settlements from being expanded. Accordingly, the CSMDP will need to be agreed under Policy SS1 updated so that it takes into account the latest guidance issued by the Secretary for the urban extension. of State so that it can be found in compliance with basic condition (a), (d) and (e). No changes to the NDP The M5 acts as a natural barrier to prevent coalescence between Creech St are proposed. Michael and Monkton Heathfield and the strategic allocation discussed above and therefore a ‘Green Wedge’ is necessary to protect the separate identities of Creech St Michael and Monkton Heathfield. Policy CSM14 should be deleted.

Gladman Green Wedge Assessment is referred to must be made available. Evidence base Agreed. The Green Wedge Assessment was subsequently made available for consultation in March 2018.

Gladman Concern that the plan in its current form does not comply with basic condition General. The NDP is submitted in (d). The plan does not conform with national policy and guidance and in its full accordance with Part 5

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 32 www.wyg.com

current form does not contribute to the achievement of sustainable development of the Neighbourhood and fails to accord with the policies of the Strategic Plan. Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended). Compliance with the basic conditions is set out in submitted Basic Conditions Statement.

No changes to the NDP are proposed.

Cheddon **Note, identical comments submitted by West Monkton Parish General, Policies CSM1, Support welcomed. Fitzpaine Council, recorded below for completeness”” CSM2, CSM3 and CSM5. Parish Council No changes to the NDP Overall, support this NDP and sees no conflict with the West Monkton & are proposed. Cheddon Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan currently with the Independent Examiner.

On a point of clarification in 3.1.23 the Eastern Relief Road (ERR) is now the A38, and the Western Relief Road (WRR) will link the ERR with the A3259.

In 4.2.2 we support the quotes from TDBC Garden Town Principles/Expression of Interest referring to Rapid Bus transit and the provision and governance of a green necklace around Taunton and green infrastructure links.

In 4.2.4 we support the quote ‘Creech St Michael Parish calls on all interested parties to work collaboratively to deliver a high-quality development for Monkton Heathfield that reflects the Garden Town Principles.’

In 8.1.4 we support Creech St Michael Parish Council’s position in wishing to agree and establish a Traffic Management Plan for the villages in the Parish, and share the issues identified in 8.1.6.

CSM 1 policy to create a network of joined up cycle routes and footpaths echoes transport policy in West Monkton and Cheddon Fitzpaine NDP. There is a real opportunity to develop a walking and cycle network that will allow easy access to Taunton and Nexus from the settlements to the east of Taunton.

CSM 3 policy regarding building of bungalows and the evidence supporting the policy (CSM Housing Needs Survey) is the same as the evidence found and

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 33 www.wyg.com

policy developed by West Monkton and Cheddon Fitzpaine NDP in Housing Policy H1.

CSM 5 policy on starter units in the employment areas within the Neighbourhood Plan Area echoes the policy in West Monkton and Cheddon Fitzpaine NDP (Employment Policy E1). We believe these policies in both NDP areas are a very practical complementary policy to support the TDBC NEXUS Employment Park (located adjacent to CSM NP area) which aims to attract larger employment units. It is hoped that TDBC will assist in the marketing of starter units in the NDP areas as a means of encouraging growth of employment opportunities in Taunton Deane generally.

Ruishton and Welcome the publication of the Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Plan Section 6.0 Vision and Support welcomed. Thornfalcon Consultation. objectives, Section 8.0 Henlade and Thornfalcon Parish Council Policies to be added as suggested Recognises the systematic approach that has been adopted and the thorough upon agreement with the consultation process that has been employed and this response focuses on Panel? vision and policies. Where the Panel is directly Support for the Vision and Objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan which are commissioning projects, appropriate and compatible with the interests of the residents of Ruishton & consultation will take place Thornfalcon. with Ruishton and Thornfalcon Parish CSM1 is supported and particularly the requirement that development proposals Council, where relevant. should demonstrate how they will enhance the safety, legibility and capacity of the existing walking & cycling network/ or deliver new dedicated walking & cycling connections to Ruishton, Nexus 25 and we would add Henlade and Thornfalcon.

Supports the inclusion of the proposal to develop a comprehensive Traffic Management Plan for Creech St Michael within Policy CSM2 and requests that Ruishton & Thornfalcon Parish Council should contribute to the process and be consulted throughout.

Policy CSM3, CSM4, CSM5, CSM7, CSM8, CSM10, CSM12 and CSM14 are endorsed.

Policy CSM6 is supported and request that Ruishton and Thornfalcon Parish Council should be consulted over planning applications of significance to the Parish, particularly where new sources of traffic generation are proposed.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 34 www.wyg.com

The Parish Council requests that it should be consulted over proposals for new recreational, sporting and community facilities to ensure compatibility of offer and avoid duplication in the locality.

Policy CSM13 is supported and request that Ruishton and Thornfalcon parish Council should be consulted on any such proposals that affect the Parish

Ruishton and Policy CSM11- No policy included. CSM11 Agreed. Reference to Thornfalcon Policy CSM11 to be Parish Council deleted.

Ruishton and Request consultation on projects which have may have an impact on Ruishton Community Action Plan Where the Panel is directly Thornfalcon and West Monkton Parish. commissioning projects, Parish Council consultation will take place with Ruishton and Thornfalcon Parish Council, where they have an impact on that Parish.

West Monkton **Note, identical comments submitted by Cheddon Fitzpaine Parish General, Policies CSM1, Support welcomed. Parish Council Council, recorded below for completeness”” CSM2, CSM3 and CSM5. No changes to the NDP Overall, support for this NDP and see no conflict with the West Monkton & required. Cheddon Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan currently with the Independent Examiner.

On a point of clarification in 3.1.23 the Eastern Relief Road (ERR) is now the A38, and the Western Relief Road (WRR) will link the ERR with the A3259.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 35 www.wyg.com

In 8.1.4 we support Creech St Michael Parish Council’s position in wishing to agree and establish a Traffic Management Plan for the villages in the Parish, and share the issues identified in 8.1.6.

CSM 3 policy regarding building of bungalows and the evidence supporting the policy (CSM Housing Needs Survey) is the same as the evidence found and policy developed by West Monkton and Cheddon Fitzpaine NDP in Housing Policy H1.

Simon Harris Disappointed that some of the points that came out in the survey have not been General. Screening and buffering of represented in the NP. Much of the plan seems to be aimed solely at the village the motorway has been of CSM and not representative of the parish as a whole. One of the points that sought within Policies came out strongly on the survey was for adequate screening of the motorway CSM4 and CSM14. on the west side of the motorway to help reduce noise pollution and visual impact for the existing communities especially in Creech Heathfield and in parts No changes to the NDP of Creech St Michael why has this been left out? are proposed

Simon Harris I wrote to the consultants regarding the plight of the deer population that does Evidence base Deer are not protected not seem to show up at all in the ecological survey I have already pointed out species for the purposes of that many deer starved when the first phase of Monkton development was assessing the impacts of completed. The only safe route for these deer to move is under the motorway the NDP (some species are which people now want to use as a foot path this will place yet more strain on protected by legislation the deer population in the past year two have been killed trying to cross roads. against killing and injury).

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 36 www.wyg.com

It is not anticipated that any of the policies within the NDP would have an adverse impact on deer populations.

No changes to the NDP are proposed.

South We wish not to comment. N/A No changes to the NDP Somerset are proposed. District Council

TDBC Public I would like to suggest some potential strengthening of policies, particularly CSM1 This is, in the main, Health Officer around transport and access to Taunton, including the Hankridge retail/leisure included for within Policy complex and Bridgwater. CSM1. The quality of facilities to be provided There is potential for a cycling and walking route south of the railway and north has not been specified of the River Tone leading to Hankridge and on to Taunton from there. As part because delivery would of the garden town initiative there is a desire to enable active travel to and from need to be considered on the urban extensions. I see significant potential for cycling, and in particular e- a case-by-case basis, bikes (battery assisted cycles), from the new developments and Creech St having regard to viability, Michael itself, as the distances involved for utility trips to Hankridge and Taunton ecological and flooding are ideally suited to this mode. It would also of course help with wider public constraints and the health objectives such as reduced traffic congestion, everyday physical activity, scale/nature of the children having greater independent travel options eg to cinema, school, and air proposed development. quality etc. No changes to the NDP I would therefore like to suggest that the plan includes high quality (that is are proposed. tarmac, all weather, lighted) cycleways both from Creech itself and the proposed urban extension to Taunton town centre. I appreciate that much of those routes would fall outside the plan area, but a significant element would fall within, and your populations need to have such a facility to make cycling to the nearest main town a safe and practicable reality. It is important to note too that the canal towpath offers an existing route but it would not be suited to much more cycle traffic than currently uses it. The proposed policy CSM1 arguably would include this, but without being specific about an ambition for a high quality route

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 37 www.wyg.com

on this alignment, would it actually come forward as a specific proposal from any quarter?

TDBC Public I would also like to suggest that contributions for funding such a route should be General There are no specific Health Officer included in the NP CIL proposals. You will be aware that off site cycling routes proposals for CIL are rarely funded by developers, and indeed high quality provision is often expenditure at this stage. downgraded during pre-app discussions between Highways and developers, or There is no requirement during viability assessments. Funding for off site routes is rarely available from for the NDP to be other sources, so NP CIL funding would in all likelihood be essential, unless supported by an funding through the garden town process becomes available. infrastructure plan/list.

CIL funding should also be considered in relation to the projects list in the draft No changes to the NDP plan, with particular emphasis on projects where funding from other sources is are proposed. likely to be hard to find.

TDBC Public The plan also mentions concerns about rat running through Creech St Michael. CSM1 Comments noted, no Health Officer 20mph and traffic calming is suggested, but not specifically measures to prevent specific changes through traffic using the village. Traffic calming and 20mph alone would be suggested. unlikely to significantly affect volumes (they don’t at present!). There are measures available that can effectively discourage through traffic while No changes to the NDP maintaining legitimate access. Given the scale of proposed development and are proposed. the consequent desire line from the A38 to the A358, there is every likelihood of increased rat running without effective access controls. It is however important to recognise that there may be a price to pay for residents, in that effective measures to minimise rat running of through traffic may also cause some inconvenience to residents and businesses, and the community as a whole will need to have a collective view on whether any specific measures swing the balance too far. For example, in the Netherlands some communities use rising bollards on country lanes which only allow one car through every 30 seconds. This is sufficient to deter nearly all drivers who then use the main road as they should. Thus in practice only vehicles with legitimate access needs use the road and are barely inconvenienced by the rising bollard. The lane is also much safer for walking and cycling as a consequence, forming part of the network of cycling routes.

TDBC Public With regards to housing, some neighbourhood plans are including a desire for Section 8.0 Policies Space standards are Health Officer lifetime homes to form a percentage of new build. You have identified the need included within the for 2 bedroom houses, which is welcome. Given the high average age of this adopted TDBC SADMP

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 38 www.wyg.com community providing step-down housing designed for adaptation on lifetime (Policy D10) and Lifetime homes principles would be desirable. Please consider including something along Homes standards are these lines – see for example section 4.2 here encouraged through Core https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/aef4b2_4699af7c0eef498fbbd4fb2d5e508426.pdf Strategy Policy DM4 and and likewise in relation to space standards for new build. required through SADMP Policy D7.

Whilst we acknowledge that the proportion of those aged over 65 in the Parish is higher than both the County and national averages, significant demand for specialist design or accommodation has not been reflected during consultation. Therefore an aspirational policy for this matter would be difficult to justify based on a lack of evidence to support a real need.

No changes to the NDP are proposed.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 39 www.wyg.com

5.0 Further evidence base consultation

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Further consultation was carried out to ensure that interested parties were able to review the evidence base associated with the NDP and its policies, and specifically the Green Wedge Assessment (February 2018) and Housing Needs Assessment (August 2017).

5.1.2 The consultation was carried out between 13th March 2018 and 3rd April 2018. In total, a further eight responses were received. Not all comments received related purely to the assessments for which the consultation was intended and some related to the wider NDP policies and processes. Nonetheless, all have been considered and addressed within the table on the next page.

5.1.3 Full copies of the additional responses received are included at Appendix D.

5.1.4 As a result of the consultation responses received, and in particular the comments of TDBC, the Green Wedge Assessment has been revised and importantly, Plan 15 updated to amend the proposed Green Wedge designation. Details are provided within the updated Green Wedge Assessment (April 2018).

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 40 www.wyg.com

Respondent: Summary of the key issues / concerns: Relevant policy / NDP Panel response theme: and proposed changes to the NDP (where relevant):

John Reid The Green Wedge Policy has been developed specifically to prevent development Green Wedge Assessment It is important to note that around the village of Creech St Michael which is contrary to the objectives of and Policy CSM11 the objectives of both national planning policy and in my opinion should be removed from the policies are not to prevent Neighbourhood Plan in its entirety. It also contradicts other Policies within the growth, but to recognise Neighbourhood Plan which cannot be delivered without growth. The references the different functions of to National Policy within the Green Wedge Policy at section 3.0 highlight that there land contained within the is no firm policy basis for the designation: “The NPPF and accompanying Planning NDP area. It is critical that Practice Guidance (PPG) does not specifically recognise Green Wedges as a each settlement continues planning policy designation”. to retain its own character and distinctiveness The Green Wedge proposal is therefore designed as a form of “Green Belt”. There (including the urban is considerable evidence which confirms the restricting effect of such policies on extension which will create economic and social development. The Adam Smith Institute published a paper in a new community). Policy January 2015, The Green Noose, which confirmed that green belts hold back CSM11 has been economic development and lead to escalating housing costs. formulated to ensure that proposals take into The Governments attitude towards Green Belts is set out in the draft Revised account the important NPPF, it states: “New Green Belts should only be established in exceptional functions of the Green circumstances”; “Any proposals for new Green Belts should be set out in strategic Wedge and that those plans”. proposals which do not preclude these functions I recognise that the revised NPPF is currently subject to consultation and could are able to be permitted. change significantly. Nevertheless, in my opinion the Green Wedge is clearly a Furthermore, it does not veiled attempt to introduce a Green Belt. The circumstances are not “exceptional” prevent further and this Neighbourhood Plan proposal has not been considered in the wider development within the context of the Taunton Deane Borough Council area. It therefore seeks to NDP area that is in integrate a strategic policy which, if appropriate, ought to be included in the accordance with the wider Taunton Deane Local Plan and not a Neighbourhood Plan. In my opinion it is Development Plan and its therefore entirely inappropriate. spatial strategy. In this way the NDP seeks to plan positively to be able to contribute towards sustainable, planned growth whilst retaining

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 41 www.wyg.com

and enhancing the NDP area’s distinctiveness.

John Reid The revised NPPF also states: Green Wedge Assessment Planned growth is set out “Neighbourhood plans can shape, direct and help to deliver sustainable and Policy CSM11 within TDBC’s adopted development, by influencing local planning decisions as part of the Development Plan. statutory development plan.” It is considered that Policy Neighbourhood plans should therefore be proactive in seeking to deliver benefit CSM11 is in conformity for local communities through growth. In my opinion, inclusion of a Green Wedge with the Development Policy fails to follow the Government’s intention of delivering growth. Plan, in particular CS Policy CP8, and moreover In the absence of a clear and deliverable plan for growth (which is lacking within does not conflict with the Taunton Deane), any policy which restricts delivery of development should be wider spatial strategy or avoided. It should be borne in mind that Taunton Deane is restricted in terms of prejudice planned growth. its ability to expand because of various designations and restrictions, the following is an extract from the TDBC Core Strategy: Likewise, Policy CSM11 does not conflict with the “The quality of the landscape and setting of the Borough is of a particularly high development allocations in standard and this is reflected by the national recognition of the Blackdowns and the SADMP for Creech St Quantocks as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the AONBs covering about Michael. 20% of the geographic area of the Borough. The Somerset Levels and Moors are recognised as Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar sites whilst there are The intention is to reflect also three Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) at Hestercombe House, Quants the NPPF’s approach for and Holme Moor and Clean Moor. There are 19 Sites of Special Scientific Interest NDP’s to shape and direct (SSSI) including those referred to above as well as over 350 local wildlife sites sustainable development, within the Borough.“ further evidence of this is provided in the Basic Taunton Deane needs to expand and will become an increasing focus of Conditions Statement. development within the Plan timescale because of the A358 duelling which is proposed for 2020 onwards. In addition, the Nexus 25 proposal which has been granted via a Local Development Order and is important to the Towns future economic growth will lead to demand for housing within a sustainable commuting distance, particularly for travel by foot or cycle. In my opinion, these changes will focus growth on the eastern side of Taunton and the villages of Creech St Michael, Ruishton and Henlade in particular.

John Reid There are relatively few sustainable opportunities for growth in or around the Green Wedge Assessment The spatial strategy within village of Creech St Michael due to flood zones. The protection of Green Wedge and Policy CSM11 the adopted Development

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 42 www.wyg.com

land in the longer term could lead to pressure to develop land within flood zones Plan focuses on growth (as has occurred elsewhere) which in my opinion is not a desirable outcome. The within Taunton and inevitable more immediate direct effect of the proposed Green Wedge, should it Wellington, with limited be upheld, will be to lead developers to “leap-frog” the Green Wedge and develop growth within Minor Rural elsewhere in and around the Neighbourhood Plan Area. These effects may not all Centres such as Creech St be undesirable, but they will concentrate development in a way that has not been Michael, therefore it is not fully considered. This is, for example, likely to lead to the following: necessary for expansive development opportunities • Development in and around Creech Heathfield which is further away from to be available in this public services in a less sustainable location. location to be able to deliver upon the required • Development in and around Adsborough which is similarly further away growth. from public services in a less sustainable location. Creech Heathfield is • Coalescence of Creech Heathfield with Creech St Michael. designated as a village, having its own settlement • Further infilling within the village including at land off Dillons Road, boundary, and it therefore Vicarage Lane and off Hyde Lane less preferable for growth within the spatial strategy. On this basis it is unlikely that large scale proposals outside of the settlement boundary would be considered appropriate in the context of CS Policy SP1.

The point in relation to coalescence of Creech St Michael and Creech Heathfield is noted and the Green Wedge Plan (Plan 15) has been amended to extend the designated area on this basis.

Dr Ben I am writing to you with regards to the Creech St Michael development Plan. Transport/traffic Support for the vision Maughan Specifically with regards to wanting to ensure that "Creech St Michael Parish in welcomed. 20 years time is a safe and friendly environment while remaining rural, peaceful and green".

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 43 www.wyg.com

We have lived in the village since 2013 and are horrified at the hugely increased The NDP includes Policies volume of traffic since then. Also the ridiculous speeds with which some drivers CSM1 and CSM2 which go through the village, particularly at the Mill Lane end as there are very few seek to address the issues speed restrictions at this end of the village. Since the ill-advised rerouting of the raised. A38 around Bathpool many people now use the village as a cut through to get to/from the A358 and M5. It is no longer acceptably safe walking through the village.

The railway bridge is a death trap waiting to happen for pedestrians as it has sheer sided metal walls and no way to escape from vehicles mounting the pavement. When two vehicles pass on the bridge it is not unusual for one to mount the pavement. I have twice been clipped on the shoulder by wing mirrors of passing vehicles. There was a fatal accident at the top of Mill Lane not long ago. It will not be too long I feel before there is one on this bridge.

I cannot support any further development whatsoever in the Parish until these safety issues are addressed at this end of the village. A separate pedestrian bridge over the railway or at least some speed bumps at this end of the village are urgently required. I would also highly recommend a pedestrian footbridge over the canal which goes up to the new development field below the GP Surgery as this would link the village together much more safely for children walking to school and for pedestrians.

Canal & River Unfortunately, the Canal & River Trust were not aware of the Regulation 14 Administration / Comments acknowledged. Trust consultation on the Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Development Plan (CSM consultation NH Plan) carried out in 8th December 2017 to 2nd February 2018. We have All points raised at this recently been made aware that this neighbourhood plan was in preparation stage will be taken into following a consultation on the Housing Needs Survey and Green Wedge Policy. account. We therefore hope that the Parish Council will consider points raised below on the wider plan document at this time. Toolkit noted and welcomed. We wish to draw attention to our e- planning toolkit - the Trust has recently sent out our document ‘Planning for waterways in neighbourhood-plans’ to all Parish Councils to help encourage early engagement and suggest issues which may be of interest or relevance in a particular location.

We are pleased to note that at 3.1.15 The community have identified the canal Administration / Comments noted and NDP and towpath (note; it is not written as ‘tow path’) as being important. We note consultation amended in accordance that various sections within the plan, the Bridgwater & Taunton canal is with recommendation

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 44 www.wyg.com incorrectly named. Please note the correct title is ‘Bridgwater & Taunton canal’ and we would request that this is amended throughout the plan.

Paragraph 3.1.17 states that there are dramatic remains of the Chard Canal, Area Profile Comments noted and NDP including the (filled) junction with the Bridgwater & Taunton Canal. A raised amended in accordance embankment leading south from the village, a ruined aqueduct that would have with recommendation carried the canal over the River Tone and the abutments of a second aqueduct (now at paragraph 3.7.2) across a local road. Several Second World War pillboxes also remain along the Canal, one of which has been turned into a haven for bats. We suggest that, for clarity, this paragraph may need to make it clear that the pillboxes are on the Bridgwater & Taunton canal not on the remains of the Chard canal?

We note that the canal is valued as it runs through the parish, however to CSM1, CSM7 Comments noted and NDP maximise the benefits the canal can bring to the area there is a need for Policy CSM1 amended in waterway proofing of planning policy at the neighbourhood plan level to unlock accordance with the economic, environmental and social benefits which could be offered by the recommendation. canal. Policy CSM1 – cycle and footpath provision, suggests that new development Comments in respect of a must demonstrate the enhancement of the existing walking and cycling network, proposed bridge across including railway and canal bridges. We suggest that the canal towpath is the canal are noted. included in this section, not just bridges over the canal as being in need of enhancement as a result of new development. Since the allocated In the past the Trust has suggested that new development in the parish should development sites are at better integrate land and water, open up access to, from and along the an advanced stage and waterway and explore the added value and use of water space. It was the need to accord with suggested that new development should link to the canal towpath and make a the tests contained within contribution towards towpath improvement, but this was not supported at the R.122 of the CIL time. Regulations, it is not We note a new bridge is suggested linking Larkfleet to the canal. Any new considered appropriate or bridge over the canal will need the agreement of the Canal & River Trust as relevant to discuss S106 owner of the canal and will need to be in accordance with the details provided in contributions specifically our code of practice for works adjacent to a waterway’. The Trust will also need within the NDP. to consider the impact of any potential increase in use on the towpath itself and both these issues should be discussed with the Trust as soon as possible. The local priorities listed The Neighbourhood Plan suggests public realm improvements for the village within Policy CSM7 are centre using CIL receipts under policy CSM 7 and elsewhere, at section 9.2 it absed upon the suggests a canal enhancement scheme and the protection of its setting and consultation responses surrounding environment. It is suggested that the Parish Council will lead on received throughout the this. We would suggest that the Trust and Parish council consider whether there drafting of the NDP, are opportunities to encourage and enhance the use, enjoyment and setting of however, this list does not the canal and perhaps CIL receipts could be used for this type of improvement preclude CIL meaningful

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 45 www.wyg.com

too? We can find no reference to seeking S106 contributions within the plan contribution receipts being area. spent on the projects suggested should funding and delivery aspirations align.

No changes are proposed to the NDP in this respect.

Canals and With relation to the Green wedge consultation it appears that the land adjacent Green Wedge, Local There are no proposals to Rivers Trust to the canal towpath and running to the railway is currently considered to be Green Spaces (Policies designate land adjacent to green space under CSM 12 but it is now proposed to designate it as a green CSM10 and CSM11) the canal towpath as a wedge under policy CSM 13. If this is the case should it now be removed from Green Wedge. policy CSM 12?

We are pleased to note that this designation does not include the Trust owned towpath which runs to the north of the designation (referred to as a public footpath rather than towpath) as any proposal to designate it in such a way would be resisted by the Trust.

Highways We have no further comments to those we sent on 2 February. N/A Noted England

South Having read and duly considered the Housing Needs Survey and Green Wedge N/A Noted Somerset Policy, I have no comments to make. District Council Natural Natural England does not consider that the Housing Needs Survey and Green N/A Noted England Wedge Assessment poses any likely risk or opportunity in relation to our statutory purpose, and so does not wish to comment.

Gladman It is considered that some policies, informed by the retrospective evidence, do Green Wedge Assessment The evidence base has not reflect the requirements of national policy and guidance; concern that the developed through the Green Wedge Policy was set out in the draft Plan before the evidence was made drafting and consultation available and as such, we question whether the evidence base has simply been of the NDP. The date of produced retrospectively to support the decisions regarding Green Wedge that the assessment publication have already been made reflects the summarising of these activities and not the timescales in which they were carried out.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 46 www.wyg.com

Regard to national policies and guidance is contained within the “justification and conformity” section that accompanies Policy CSM11 and within the Basic Conditions Statement in terms of the policy’s contribution to achieving sustainable development.

Gladman The Green Wedge policy is considered to be a strategic policy, beyond the remit Green Wedge Assessment Concerns are noted and of the neighbourhood plan that would have the effect of imposing a blanket further explanation has restriction on development to the west of Creech St Michael. Reference is made been provided within the within the Green Wedge to a longstanding history of the use of Green Wedges Green Wedge Assessment in the Taunton Deane Area, with the East Taunton Local Plan (1991) being (April 2018). identified as an initial source of such policies. We consider that this simply cements our above point, that the inclusion of such policies is a matter for The principle of a Green strategic planning and an issue that should not be dealt with in a neighbourhood Wedge policy within the plan. NDP at a local level is supported by TDBC.

Gladman As the Parish Council will be aware, Gladman have land interest in the NPA, and Green Wedge Assessment This is noted in the have a pending application for up to 200 dwellings with public open space assessment for Area 1. registered with Taunton Deane Council. Area 1, as identified in the Green Wedge Assessment covers the land subject to the pending planning application and as such will potentially be subject to the restrictions enforced by draft Policy CSM 14.

Gladman Coalescence of settlements and wider urban area - as previously stated, we Green Wedge Assessment It is not agreed that the submit that the M5 acts as a natural barrier to prevent coalescence between objectives of the M5 provides a natural Creech St Michael and Monkton Heathfield and as such do not consider that a designation barrier that would achieve Green Wedge is necessary to protect the separate identities of Creech St Michael the same objectives of a and Monkton Heathfield. Green Wedge.

Gladman The second purpose refers to contribution to a sense of identity and place, with Green Wedge Assessment Noted – it is not the the analysis of Area 1 concluding that the area provides a key rural gateway intention of Policy CSM11 between the urban extension and Creech St Michael. In response to this to prevent proposals which criterion, Gladman suggest that an area’s pleasant sense of openness and rural do not conflict with or in feel cannot simply amount to a landscape which should be protected and some cases will perhaps

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 47 www.wyg.com

providing a rural gateway does not amount to contributing to a unique sense of contribute to its identity. objectives.

Gladman In respect of the low scoring when assessing the contribution of recreation Green Wedge Assessment Noted – it is not the opportunities, Gladman would like to remind the Parish Council that intention of Policy CSM11 development of the land south of Langaller Lane, which as stated in the Green to prevent proposals which Wedge Assessment is in private ownership currently, would lead to the provision do not conflict with or in of publicly accessible open space and a Locally Equipped Area for Play. some cases will perhaps contribute to its objectives.

Gladman Reference is made within the Green Wedge Assessment to a ‘recent ecological Green Wedge Assessment Noted – it is not the survey to support a planning application to the south of Langaller Lane recorded intention of Policy CSM11 8 species of bat including Lesser Horseshoe. Gladman would like to remind the to prevent proposals which Parish Council that the Ecological Impact Assessment, referenced here, do not conflict with or in submitted as part of the pending planning application for 200 dwellings, some cases will perhaps concluded that ‘with the implementation of some straightforward mitigation and contribute to its precautionary measures as proposed with this scheme, the development is not objectives. anticipated to result in any significant adverse residual effects to important ecological features.’ We consider it important that the Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Plan recognise that any development within the area, need not necessarily lead to a negative impact upon wildlife and other ecology present in the area and that mitigation measures can be implemented to ensure that no harm is caused to nature conservation interests.

Gladman The August 2017 Housing Needs Survey, which again regrettably has only Housing Needs Noted – these issues are recently been published for review, concludes that a low level of affordable Assessment beyond the scope of the housing need has been identified and concludes that it is not necessary to NDP. provide additional affordable housing at this time. Gladman are incredibly concerned about this conclusion and wish to remind the Parish Council that there is a recognised chronic need for affordable housing nationally and locally within Taunton Deane.

Gladman Further we are concerned that the Housing Needs Survey does not represent a Housing Needs Policy CSM3 is supported robust evidence base upon which to base policies with the draft Neighbourhood Assessment by the HNA and also the Plan. Within the summary of the Affordable Housing Needs Findings, it is clearly consultation feedback stated that only 24% of respondents who were asked to complete the survey provided. We consider that did so. We therefore suggest that it is wholly inappropriate to draw any it reflects a coherent conclusions from the survey, given that over 75% of results are unavailable. evidence base and the Draft Policy CSM 3 – Housing to meet local needs, cites the Housing Needs aspirations of both Survey as the primary evidence supporting this policy. Gladman are however

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 48 www.wyg.com

unclear how any of the findings from the Housing Needs Survey support policy national and local planning CSM 3 and specifically the reference made to planning applications for 11 or policy. more dwellings needing to demonstrate delivery of housing meet local identified needs. We suggest that either the Housing Needs Survey or indeed the supporting text for policy CSM 3 provides a much clearer indication of the breakdown of required housing needed within the neighbourhood plan area to assist decision makers in applying the policy evenly and fully. Gladman suggest that the Parish Council seek to produce a much more robust Housing Needs Survey to sit within the Neighbourhood Plans evidence base.

TDBC TDBC Planning Policy comments are restricted to the Green Wedge Assessment Housing Needs Noted as the Housing Needs Survey was undertaken by TDBC Housing Enabling Team Assessment and the “Conclusions” section of the document contains the Councils opinion.

TDBC It is clear that a great deal of time has been spent in the formulation of this Green Wedge Assessment Support welcomed document. The document format is clear and easy to read and explains to the reader the process undertaken and its results.

TDBC We would recommend that stronger links are made to the functions of the Green Wedge Assessment Noted and agreed – the Green Wedge in the adopted TDBC Core Strategy and the TDBC 2015 Green Green Wedge Assessment Wedge Assessment. Context map(s) and photographs would be helpful, has been revised particularly for the lay-person and the Independent Examiner who are not accordingly. familiar with the area. We would suggest useful context on maps includes: the NDP area, the Monkton Heathfield Urban Extension and the settlement limits for CSM and Creech Heathfield. Photographs would help to demonstrate matters such as the landscape and visual value, recreational potential, identify and place, etc.

TDBC Area 1: suggest there is a case for considering as part of Area 1 the risks of Green Wedge Assessment Noted and agreed – the coalescence of the villages of Creech St Michael and Creech Heathfield. Please Green Wedge Assessment also refer to TDBC Core Strategy and TDBC Final Green Wedge Assessment has been revised 2015. accordingly

TDBC Area 2: no comment on conclusion. Suggest that the area as shown may have Green Wedge Assessment Noted and agreed – this merits being defined by the NDP as Local Green Space. area is proposed to be designated as Local Green Space under Policy CSM10

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 49 www.wyg.com

TDBC Area 3: suggest this is complicated by the Neighbourhood Plan Area boundary, Green Wedge Assessment Noted and agreed – the which follows the Parish Boundary (also follows the Sedgemoor/TDBC Green Wedge Assessment administrative boundaries). This boundary effects the ability to designate Green has been revised Wedge, for example: the areas outside the scope and influence of the NDP accordingly when endeavouring to assess and to protect open character, coalescence and landscape value. In addition, the assessment says that: at a local level the defined area was not of significant value, formed part of wider open countryside but had no public access, and it did not possess recreation opportunities. Please also refer to TDBC Core Strategy and TDBC Final Green Wedge Assessment 2015.

CSM NDP – Consultation Statement Page 50 www.wyg.com

6.0 Summary and Conclusion

6.1 Summary

6.1.1 Extensive consultation following the designation of the Neighbourhood Area has been undertaken to inform the vision, objectives and policies contained within the NDP.

6.1.2 The main concerns and issues raised have been summarised and addressed where relevant within the NDP and supporting documents.

6.2 Conclusion

6.2.1 This statement fulfils the legal obligations of Section 15(2) the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 (as amended) and has been submitted as such to support the NDP process.

The vision for Creech St Michael Parish in 20 years’ time should aim for a safe and friendly environment while remaining rural, peaceful and green.

Appendix A - List of those consulted

Properties / Organisations Consulted

Statutory and non-statutory consultees Taunton Deane Borough Council Natural England Environment Agency Historic England Somerset County Council – Transport Policy Somerset County Council – Lead Local Flood Authority Somerset County Council – Rights of Way Somerset County Council - Ecology Somerset County Council – Children’s Commissioning Somerset County Council - Education South West Heritage Somerset County Council – Minerals and Waste Somerset County Council – Planning Policy Coal Authority Homes and Communities Agency Network Rail Highways England Marine Management Organisation BT Open Reach EMF EE Network Three Network National Grid Fulfords Land Wessex Water NHS South West Canal and River Trust West Monkton and Cheddon Fitzpaine Neighbourhood Plan Group West Monkton and Cheddon Fitzpaine Parish Council Ruishton and Thornfalcon Parish Council Forestry Commission Garden History Society National Trust

District and Parish Councils Sedgemoor District Council South Somerset District Council East Devon District Council Mid Devon District Council Ash Priors Parish Council Ashbrittle Parish Council Bathealton Parish Council Bishops Hull Parish Council Bishops Lydeard Parish Council Selworthy & Minehead Without Parish Council Burrowbridge Parish Council Cheddon Fitzpaine Parish Council Chipstable Parish Council Churchstanton Parish Council Combe Florey Parish Council Comeytrowe Parish Council Corfe Parish Council Kingston St Mary Parish Council Creech St Michael Parish Council Durston Parish Council Fitzhead Parish Council Halse Parish Council Hatch Beauchamp Parish Council Langford Budville Parish Council Lydeard St Lawrence & Tolland Parish Council Milverton Parish Council North Curry Parish Council Norton Fitzwarren Parish Council Nynehead Parish Council Oake Parish Council Otterford Parish Council Pitminster Parish Council Ruishton Parish Council Sampford Arundel Parish Council Staplegrove Parish Council Stawley Parish Council Stoke St Gregory Parish Council Stoke St Mary Parish Council Ruishton Parish Council Lydeard St Lawrence & Tolland Parish Council Trull Parish Council Wellington Town Council Wellington Without Parish Council West Bagborough Parish Council Kentisbeare Parish Council West Hatch Parish Council West Monkton Parish Council Wiveliscombe Town Council Neroche Parish Council Broomfield Parish Council North Petherton Town Council Lyng Parish Council Westonzoyland Parish Council Middlezoy Parish Council Othery Parish Council Stogumber Parish Council Elworthy Parish Council Huish Champflower Parish Council Clatworthy Parish Council Upton Parish Council Skilgate Parish Council Aller Parish Council Curry Rivel Parish Council Fivehead Parish Council Yarcombe Parish Council Upottery Parish Council Bampton Town Council Clayhidon Parish Council Parkham Parish Council Hemyock Parish Council Holocombe Rogus Parish Council Morebath Parish Council Borden Gate Parish Council Culmstock Parish Council Councillor Mike Lewis Councillor David Durdan Councillor Kelly Durdan Councillor David Fothergill

Residents Wispers, North End, CSM TA3 5EB 40 Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB The Villa, Vicarage Lane, CSM TA3 5PP 10 Mill Lane, CSM TA3 5PT 53 Hopkins Field, CSM TA3 5FE 25 Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB Littondale, CSM TA3 5PT 53 Arundells Way, CSM TA3 5QT 68 Leighton Drive TA3 5DW Ash Tree Cottage, North End, CSM TA3 5EB 15, Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB Rowans, Chalrton Road, Creech Heathfield TA3 5PE 6 Homefield Close, CSM TA3 5QR 38 Arundells Way, CSM TA3 5QT Wortheys Farm, Worthy Lane, CSM TA3 5EF 23 Dillons Road, CSM TA3 5DS 12 HOPKINS FIELD, CSM TA3 5FE 2 Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB Kerrow House, Ham Road, CSM TA3 5PB 2 Powell Close TA3 5TE Magnum House, Crown Lane, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EU Sun-up, Bull Street, CSM TA3 5PW Sunnydale, Meads Droveway, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EX 60 Leighton Drive, CSM TA3 5DW Creech Barn, CSM TA3 5PP 21 Arundells Way, CSM TA3 5QS 52 Hopkins Field, CSM TA3 5FE 1 Powell Close, CSM TA3 5TE Court Barton, Bull St, CSM TA3 5PW 7 Kingdon Mead, CSM TA3 5TD

Teren Cottage, CSM TA3 5EF 67 West View, CSM TA3 5DU The Crown House, Crown Lane TA3 5EU 97 West View, CSM TA3 5DX Merdeka, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EA 46 Leighton Drive, CSM TA3 5DW 28 Arundells Way, CSM TA3 5QT 3 Meredith Close, CSM TA3 5BF 37 Hopkins Field, CSM TA3 5FE Husk Farm, TA3 5QB 48 West View, CSM TA3 5DU 31 Arundels Way, CSM TA3 5QJ 7 Leighton Drive, CSM TA3 5DW 41 Ryesland Way, CSM TA3 5TA 20 Leighton Drive, CSM TA3 5DW 34 Queens Down, CSM TA3 5QY 4 West View, CSM TA3 5QP 16 Tristram Drive, CSM TA3 5QU 2 Leighton Drive CSM TA3 5DW 59 West View, CSM TA3 5DU 30 Arundells Way, CSM TA3 5QT 6 Francis Close, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EL Alicar, Worthy Lane, CSM TA3 5EF The Cottage, Worthy Lane, CSM TA3 5EF 7 Mill Cottages, CSM TA3 5PU 13 West View, CSM TA3 5QP 19 Meredith Close, CSM TA3 5BF 6 Caray Grove, CSM TA3 5TB 17 Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB 21 Alexander Close, CSM TA3 5DY 60 Hyde Lane, TA3 5FA 8 Kingdon Mead, CSM TA3 5TD Old Ham Wharf Farm, Ham TA3 5NZ 43 West View, CSM TA3 5DU 34 Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB 4 Rocketts Cottages, CSM TA3 5QN Edgebury, Walford Cross TA2 8QP 36 Queensdown, CSM TA3 5QY Beacon Top, Coombe, West Monkton TA2 8RE 1 Vicarage Lawns, CSM TA3 5EZ TowerLea, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EH Lamorna, Ham, CSM TA3 5NY 1 Hyde Court, Hyde Lane, CSM TA3 5RB Mill Lodge, Mill Lane, CSM TA3 5PT 52 West View, CSM TA3 5DX Willow House, Ham, CSM TA3 5NZ 1 Sycamore Walk, CSM TA3 5PG 26 Leighton Drive, CSM TA3 5DW Barn Oaks, Worthy lane, CSM TA3 5EF 12 Arundells Way, CSM TA3 5QS 6 Mill Lane, CSM TA3 5PU 6 Tristram Drive, CSM TA3 5QN Vine Cottages, Bull Street, CSM TA3 5PW 1, Creechwood Terrace, CSM TA3 5EE Sunnyside, Thurloxton TA2 8RF 6 Laburnum Terrace CSM TA3 5QA 27 Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB Dillons, North End, CSM TA3 5DT 4 Crufts Meadow, CSM TA3 5QZ Chants TA3 5EQ 34 Dillons Rd, CSM TA3 5DS Y'Acre, Bull Street, CSM TA3 5PW Heathfield House, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EG 37 Tristram Drive CSM TA3 5QX 2 Tristram Drive, CSM TA3 5QU 31 Hopkins Field, CSM TA3 5FE Lilyhayes, Crown Lane, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EU Nortoft, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EW 85 Hyde Lane, CSM TA3 5FA 6 Queens Down, CSM TA3 5QY 48 Crufts Meadow, CSM TA3 5QZ 51 Hopkins Field, CSM TA3 5EF 5 Queens Down, CSM TA3 5QY 4 St Michael Close, CSM TA3 5DR 2 West View, CSM TA3 5QP Highfield House, Hyde Lane TA3 5FA 3 Tristram Drive CSM TA3 5QU 8 Laburnum Terrace, CSM TA3 5QA 3 Caray Grove, CSM TA3 5TB 40 Hopkins Field, CSM TA3 5FE 3 Hyde Lane, CSM TA3 5RB Tone House, Ham TA3 5NY 56 Hyde Lane, CSM TA3 5FA 4 Vicarage Lawns, CSM TA3 5EZ 7 Sycamore Walk, CSM TA3 5PS 18 Crufts Meadow, CSM TA3 5QZ 5 Tristram Drive, CSM TA3 5QU 109 West View, CSM TA3 5DX 19 Sweeting Close, Hyde Lane, TA3 5FB 16 Crufts Meadow, CSM TA3 5QZ 1 Heathfield Close TA3 5EP 10 Paddock Close, CSM TA3 5DZ Down House, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EH 38 Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB 23 Tristram Drive, CSM TA3 5QX Claremont, St Michael Close, CSM TA3 5DR Oak Shadow, CSM TA3 5DP 7 Francis Close, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EL Riparian, Bull Street, CSM TA3 5PW 20 Dillons Road, CSM TA3 5DS 9, Queens Down, CSM TA3 5QY Casa Mia, North End, CSM TA3 5ED 67 Hyde Lane, CSM TA3 5FD Walford Farmhouse, Walford Cross TA2 8QP 22 Tristram Drive, CSM TA3 5QU The Old Pound, Bull St, CSM TA3 5PW 4 Mill Cottages, Mill Lane, CSM TA3 5PU 2 Alexander Close, CSM TA3 5DY 6 Paddock Close, CSM TA3 5DZ Alexander Close, CSM TA3 5DY 45 Hopkins Field, CSM TA3 5FE Aldernea, Carvalion Rd, CSM TA3 5QQ 5 Francis Close, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EL Honeymead, CSM TA3 5PP 6 Cooks Close, CSM TA3 5EA Little Rhode, 3 St Michaels Close, CSM TA3 5DR 5 Creechwood Terrace, CSM TA3 5EE 26 Dillons Road, CSM TA3 5DS 36 Arundells Way CSM Ta3 5qt Bedruthan, Bull Street, CSM TA3 5PW The Barn, Charlton Rd, Creech Heathfield TA3 5PE Sundown, Curvalion Road, CSM TA3 5QQ Foxhole Cottage, Worthy Lane, CSM TA3 5EF 55 West View, CSM TA3 5DU 46 Hopkins Field, CSM TA3 5FE 32 Leighton Drive, CSM TA3 5DW 63 West View CSM TA3 5DU 103 West View, CSM TA3 5DX 52 Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB Japonica Cottage, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EG 33 Ryesland Way, CSM TA3 5TA 53 West View, CSM TA3 5DU 8 Paddock Chase, CSM TA3 5DZ Lydes Crest, Adsborough TA2 8RP 22 Queens Down, CSM TA3 5QY 51 Tristran Drive, CSM TA3 5QX 71 Tristam Drive TA3 5QX Pore Bless 54 Arundells Way, CSM TA3 5QT 18 Tristram Drive, CSM TA3 5PU 31 Tristram Drive, CSM TA3 5QX 4, Hopkins Field, CSM TA3 5FE 5 Homefield Close, CSM TA3 5QR 24 Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB 70 Leighton Drive, CSM TA3 5DW 3 Rocketts Cottages, CSM TA3 5QN 3 Cooks Close, CSM TA3 5EA 3 Kingdon Mead, CSM TA3 5TD 38 Queens Down, CSM TA3 5QY Charlton Cottage, Charlton Rd, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EJ 12 Leighton Drive, CSM TA3 5DW 27 Dillons Road, CSM TA3 5DS 5 Heathfield Close, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EP Heathfield Lodge, Creech Heathfield TA3 5ER 9 Kendall Close, Creech Heathfield TA3 5ET Langaller Cottage, Langaller TA2 8DA 64 West View, CSM TA3 5DX 58 Hyde Lane TA3 5FA Salters Bungalow, Charlton Rd, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EJ Stilloff, Worthy Lane, CSM TA3 5EF Fairview North End, CSM TA3 5DT 77 West View, CSM TA3 5DU 20 Ryesland Way, CSM TA3 5TA 56 Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB 16 Ryesland Way TA3 5TA Adsborough Farm, Adsborough TA2 8RP Sunnyend, Charlton Rd, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EJ 4 Dillons Rd, CSM TA3 5DS 111 West View, CSM, TA3 5DX 12 Crufts Meadow, CSM TA3 5QZ 10 Hopkins Field, CSM TA3 5FE 17 Ryesland Way, CSM TA3 5TA The Rectory, CSM TA3 5PP 3A Francis Close, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EL 42 Crufts Meadow, CSM TA3 5QZ 45 Tristram Drive, CSM TA3 5QX 2 Heathfield Farmhouse, Creech Heathfield TA3 5ER 9 Hopkins Field, CSM TA3 5FE 5 Kendall Close, CSM TA3 5ET 52 Arundells Way, CSM TA3 5QT 2 Meredith Close, CSM TA3 5BF 24 Crufts Meadow, CSM TA3 5EZ Dwelly's Drove House, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EG 48 Hyde Lane, CSM TA3 5FA 11 Sweeting Close, CSM TA3 5FB 20 Queens Down, CSM TA3 5QY Ham Dairy, Ham TA3 5NY 12 Tristram Drive, CSM TA3 5QU 1 Mallow Orchard, Creech Heathfield TA3 5EQ Summerhayes House, CSM TA3 5QQ

Interested Parties R Keating of 1 Crown Lane, Creech Heathfield Ian Collier Architects Ltd. Blueprints Architectural Services Ltd. Larkfleet Homes The Chip Cart N Barnard of 3 Meredith Close, CSM Jackson Architects Ltd. Persimmon Homes SSA Planning Redrow Homes Gladman Paul Rowe Architectural Services Ltd. Acute Building Design K Taylor of Charlton Manor Creech Heathfield Greenslade Taylor Hunt Wellmanmade Property Solutions Trevor J Spurway (architect) Alder King Barratt Housing M Owen of Coalharbour House, Ham RE:DSGN L S L Architecture J Read of Wortheys Farm, CSM Red Cow Design Orme Architecture Reed Holland Associates Ltd. Mr Deeks of 30 West View, CSM Property Plans (SW) Ltd.

Businesses Scotts of Somerset Integrated Data Needs Ltd (IDN) T Phippen & Son (Plumbers) Coles Commercials Blue Swan Solutions Ltd Somerset Mechanical Plumbing Nigel K Ford Country Granite & Marble Mill Auto Services Isle Valley Veterinary Group Jennifleurs Studio Groves Electrical Services Creechbarn Bed & Breakfast Greystones Cattery Hill View Landscapes Heathfield Hair & Beauty Oakleaf Carpentry & Building We're Eco Wood Recycling Total Bathrooms Charlton Orchards Air-ex Climate Control Ltd CLIVE ANTHONY DESIGN Style Signs Karebears Creech St Michael Primary School Universal Marquees, Creech Heathfield Westmac Flooring Specialists Ltd KH Removals AC Hopkins Limited Oakenden School of Motoring C.A.J Building Doctor’s Surgery Pharmacy Creech Auto’s Premier (Shop) The Bell Inn Baptist Church St Michael’s Parish Church The Maypole Inn Creech Village Hall Country Styles Hairdryers Ben Maughan Gardening Services Somerset Caravans Bigwoods Agri Ltd Noble Foods Retail Office, Som Hospice U Balance Ltd Environment for Business IMS Security Services Ltd Peter Green Chilled Distribution and 3663 Food UK. Bidvest Logistics Hamilton Landrovers Kier M G Ltd May Gurney T N P D Ltd Ian Thomas Plumbing and Heating Langaller Manor Farmhouse B&B Barracuda Computer Solutions Ltd CSM Preschool Jim Pike Electrical Luke Huish Electricals Simon Harris (Housing) Ian Pike

Appendix B – Pre-vision consultation summaries

CSM Annual Parish Meeting 2016

What do you like about Creech St Michael? Its strengths, positive features and assets Dots 1 Good support for Voluntary clubs - notably the miniature railway 2 A very pleasant and friendly village 3 As it stands...... The community 4 Community Spirit 1 5 The trains in the park 1 6 Party in the Park & New recreation facilities 4 7 Some green spaces - the recreation ground, the canal and the river 8 Friendly village atmosphere 9 Community feel and access to variety of linked facilities - churches, school, pre-school, vet, funeral directors, pub 10 The village hall 11 I like the green spaces such as lanes and canal 12 A pleasant village, party in the park and friendly neighbours 2 13 Not much, we'll move 14 Village facilities 15 Opportunities to be so close to the countryside - easy access and quiet surroundings 1 16 A village feel but close to a town 1 17 The canal, the rural environment Looking to the future What does Creech not currently have which you would like it to have? Dots 1 Build new road on west of village to school/rec field to bypass centre of village 2 A Village Centre 1 3 We should encourage more diversity among the population eg encouage refugees and asylum seekers to settle 4 More play equipment at park, Carey Grove 5 A youth club/indoor games area for the children 1 6 Planners listening to the existing inhabitants instead of just developers 2 7 Better pub, better parking, planning to listen to the village 8 A more vibrant pub 9 keep the green farmed space between Creech St Michael and Creech Heathfield 1 10 Non village traffic diverted 11 Larger sports facilities 2 12 Better pub 13 A green village centre and coffee shop & shops - restarting the community 14 To protect the village. Shops, pubs and to have a 20mph speed limit 2 15 Traffic control measures 20 mph, speed humps throughout the length of the main road 1 16 Better public transport for Taunton 2 17 Improved parking outside the shops at the centre of the village - construct a car park 2 18 A new centre with more facilities 19 Build a new pub 2 20 Please provide somewhere in village centre to lock a bike 21 In the toddler area for three to be more equipment for toddlers to access on their own as currently none 22 Cafe at the park 23 Better pavilion 24 More shops 25 Takeaways 26 20 mph speed 27 Better parking at the park 28 Bigger school 29 Footpath/cycle park on Hyde Lane 30 More facilities for young people 2 31 Protection of a village centre 2 32 shop 2 33 Pub 2 34 Village school 35 Some parking What do you not like about Creech St Michael? Its weaknesses, negative features and issues Dots 1 Pub not welcoming to non drinkers 2 The playground behind the Village Hall, access from Carey Grove is and has been in a state of disrepair for many years and attracts late night drinking by teenagers and worse 3 I do not like that the school is based on religion 4 Lack of infrastructure with all the new building 5 Increased nuber of cars 6 Lack of safe footpaths to school, particularly Hyde Lane 7 Poor upkeep of roads 8 Rat Run in morning and evening plus speed alond St Michael road and North End 9 Only one shop, bad opening times 10 People who don't pick up dog poo or bag it and chuck it 1 11 No Community feel 12 No volunteeers for organisations, school etc 13 Bus service is rubbish 2 14 Amount of traffic coming throught the village 15 Lack of parking around the Village Centre (ie the Post Office) 16 The rat run 17 The poor standard road 18 Lack of pedestrian access down Hyde Lane 1 19 Losing its identity 1 20 The Village shop 21 Amount of dog mess still around the village 22 There is only one shop in a bad place - none at Ruishton or anywhere near the new housing in Bathpool or Monkton 23 Lack of bus service 1 24 All the development and speeding traffic 25 Lack of bus service 26 Not a good 'centre of village' 27 Rundown looking pub 28 Garage selling cars 29 Always traffic jam 30 Lack of facilities 31 Lots of apathy and disjointed community 1 32 The 40mph speed limit at Langaller should extend over the motorway bridge tot he 30mph limit at North End 33 Lack of dog bins especially the old Hyde Lane access to Playing fields 34 Increasing volumes of traffic coming through the village and the speed! 1 35 Traffic through the village - speed therefore safety 1 36 Parking for the shop 1 37 Too much development 38 Lack of screening of the motorway 39 Lack of facilities, shops etc 40 Parish council wasting money before consulting us 1 CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Business Survey

The activity and results of the survey conducted are;-

 The CSM NH Panel identified 64 employers based in the Parish of CSM (appendix 1).  Each employer was sent the enclosed survey by Post direct to each w/b 12 th Nov 2016 to be returned Dec 2016 (appendix 2).  Further awareness raising was done by using village facebook site and an email reminder to each.  4 Questions were asked of each. Que 1. Are you looking to move larger premises 2.As Que 1 but smaller premises. 3 What are the three biggest issues/challenges for you .4 Add any comments.  14 replies were received representing 16 companies = 25% return rate.  (appendix 3)  75% of these companies are NOT looking to move.  No company wants smaller premises.  4 (2 replies) would like larger premises and these that are interested in the dev land allocated in the WM Urban Ext.  The key issues emerging are Parking/Access/Time to motorway.  A number of community/facility issues raised.  Clear there is insufficient demand with the Parish in the WM Urban Ext and therefore its viability will depend on attracting businesses outside of the Parish in order to ensure local employment for additional and existing Parishioners.

I have added points raised to the master spreadsheet of issues (flagged Bus Survey) from all consultations.

Survey signed off by CSM NH Plan panel on 24.1.2017.

Steve Clerk CSM NH Panel/Parish Clerk.

Creech St. Michael Neighbourhood Plan 2016 Survey

Conducted by The Community Council for Somerset 20 November 2016

Telephone 01823 331222 I Email [email protected] I www.somersetrcc.org.uk

Community Council for Somerset, Victoria House, Victoria Street, Taunton TA1 3JZ

The Community Council for Somerset is a Company Limited by Guarantee, Registered in England & Wales No. 3541219, and is a Registered Charity No. 1069260

© 2016 This report, or any part, may be reproduced in any format or medium, provided that is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The source must be identified and the title of the publication specified with the copyright status acknowledged.

Contents

Background, Aims, Methodology, Presentation of data 4 Summary 5-9 Findings 1. Living in the Parish 10-12 2. Transport 13-17 3. Facilities 18-26 4. Community 26-27 5. Housing 27-28 6. Built environment 28-29 7. Green space 30-31 8. Business and employment 31-34 9. Broadband 34 10. Young people 35 11. Renewable resources 36 12. Demographics 37-38

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire Appendix 2: Verbatim comments Appendix 3: Full survey results summary tables Appendix 4: Prize draw winner and Respondent contact details

Tables Table 1 Differing main traffic concerns for settlements 14 Table 2 Differing highest importance facilities for Adsborough 19 Table 3 ONS data vs survey respondents 38

Charts Chart 1 Living in Creech St. Michael Parish - characteristics of importance 10 Chart 2 Concerns about planned new developments 11 Chart 3 Perception of Creech St. Michael Parish in 20 years 12 Chart 4 Traffic concerns 13 Chart 5 Traffic solutions 14 Chart 6 Hyde Lane – West Monkton access road link 15 Chart 7 Pedestrian and cycle routes 16 Chart 8i Importance of existing village facilities 18 Charts 8ii-8vii Separate importance charts for each facility 19-23 Chart 9 Suggested future village facilities 25 Chart 10 Housing 27

Chart 11 Important historic buildings and features 28 Chart 12 Design of new build housing 29 Chart 13 Protection of green spaces 30 Chart 14 Motorway screening 31 Chart 15 Business and employment in Neighbourhood Plan 31 Chart 16 Type of workspace supported 32 Chart 17 Level of business in the parish 33 Chart 18 Future business workspace needs 33 Chart 19 Broadband 34 Chart 20 Young people’s facilities 35 Chart 21 Renewable resources 36 Chart 22 Demographics – settlements 37 Chart 21 Demographics – length resident in Parish 37 Chart 22 Demographics – Overall household age groups 38

Maps Map 1 Creech St. Michael Parish Neighbourhood Plan Survey Map 17

Background A Neighbourhood Plan for Creech St. Michael Parish (Adsborough, Combe, Charlton, Creech St. Michael, Creech Heathfield, Ham, Langaller, Walford) is particularly important now because of the land designated for development by Taunton Deane Borough Council. It is also important establish what new infrastructure may be needed to support these developments, and how the developers may contribute towards this to benefit the whole Parish community in the longer term.

With extensive community consultation, the Neighbourhood Plan will aim to set out a vision for the future that will look in details at what type of future growth the Parish needs and the most appropriate location for this. For instance, where new workspace and jobs should be encouraged, which community and leisure facilities are needed or if important green spaces need protecting, alongside heritage and the environment. When adopted, our Neighbourhood Plan will sit alongside Taunton Deane Borough Council’s Local Plan and influence planning decisions over the next 20 years.

The Parish Council, with the help of a grant from The Big Lottery fund, commissioned the Community Council for (CCS) to undertake a survey of all households in the Parish with the following aims:

Aims  Establish what Parishioners value most about living in Creech St. Michael Parish

 Examine in detail any transport concerns and parishioners views on potential solutions

 Establish the importance of current Parish facilities and what may be needed in the long term to meet the changing needs of the growing community

 Explore a range of other issues from attitudes to community cohesion, housing, green space, business and employment, built environment, broadband use, young people’s needs and renewable resources.

Methodology 1,270 paper surveys were distributed to all households on the electoral role in the Parish with reply paid envelopes for direct return to CCS. The survey was also available to complete online and hosted on the Creech St. Michael Parish website (Appendix 1 - Questionnaire).

In total 493 valid responses were received giving a 39% response rate.

The survey was promoted widely within the Parish through posters in public areas, local businesses and amenities, word of mouth, the Parish website and through social media.

Research was conducted between 1 – 30 September 2016. Presentation of Data Where questions prompt respondents to choose from a range of options to indicate their level of attitude or opinion, scores have been assigned to each option response so that an overall average can demonstrate the importance of the aspect to all respondents answering the question e.g. Extremely important = 5 Very important = 4 Somewhat important = 3 Slightly important = 2 Not at all important = 1. Corresponding charts list option choices in the order of these assigned scores. Where a question is asking for importance response totals for Extremely/Very/Somewhat important are combined and quoted.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 4 Creech St. Michael Parish Neighbourhood Plan Survey 2016 Summary

Demographic data:

 From the 1270 surveys distributed 493 households participated in the survey representing 1,179 household members overall. The 39% response rate, representing around 2 in 5 households in the Parish is statistically robust, and in CCS’s experience is a strong community response rate.

 There is representation from across the Parish with the outstanding majority, 4 in 5 respondents living in Creech St Michael village (79%). In the settlements the largest proportion of response is from Creech Heathfield (14%), followed by Ham (3%), Adsborough (2%), Charlton and Walford (1%), Langaller and Combe (0.5%).

 2 in 3 households have lived in the Parish for more than 10 years (63%), and of these nearly half have been resident for 20 or more years (47%).

 45-64 year olds are the largest group represented (over 1 in 4 the respondents - 28%). There are twice as many working age respondents taking part in this survey compared to retired respondents (52% : 26% respectively). However, the overall population represented maps closely to 2011 census figures.

Although these facts are important in understanding the composition of respondents, this survey analysis does not seek to differentiate the views of particular age groups, rather it represents the Parish population as a whole, or draws comparisons between Creech St. Michael village and other Parish settlements.

 Around 1 in 4 are families with children aged 18 or under (27%), and of these the majority have children aged between 11-18 (40% overall).

Living in the Parish

 For the overwhelming majority easy access to the countryside is the most important thing about living in Creech Parish. More than 9 in 10 residents also highly value the Parish’s community facilities - village hall, pub, churches, school, pre-school and shop.

Also of notable importance for the majority of residents is the sense of community. Although at the extremities of the Parish, particularly in Adsborough, there may be less Parish cohesion. One respondent reported feeling a sense of isolation (no Parish Magazine, Parish noticeboards out of date), while another notes that ecclesiastically the hamlet is different from Creech St. Michael and links them to Thurloxton’s church. Indeed, the view of these Adsborough residents also differs from other Creech St. Michael parishioners over the facilities they most value. It is possible given, their location and proximity to a main road, that that they may also use other facilities outside Creech St. Michael which could also compound to this feeling of isolation from the rest of the parish.

 Nearly 9 in 10 people are concerned about traffic congestion (88%) and the loss of green space (86%) resulting from the developments planned for the Parish. Other pressing issues for more than half of all residents are pressure on health services, lack of parking, pressure on school places and increased road accidents. The loss of village identity and being subsumed by Taunton recurs frequently in comments made throughout the whole survey.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 5  The vision of Creech St. Michael Parish in 20 years time should aim for a safe and friendly environment while remaining rural, peaceful and green. The image below summarises the most frequently used descriptions used by respondents

Wordle.net

Transport

 The volume of traffic is of paramount concern for a large number of Parishioners in the most densely populated areas of the Parish (76%), and the speed at which they travel (66%). Hyde Lane is mentioned frequently and the junction onto St Michaels Road with additional concerns over visibility, safety of children and parking. The large majority feel that Hyde Lane should have an access road linking onto the West Monkton relief road (68%). In terms of traffic calming, the introduction of a 20mph speed limit is an option sought by half of all parishioners, and from those who commented this would be primarily in Creech St. Michael village. Additionally,

Also affecting nearly half of all Parish residents are HGV traffic, parking (particularly centre of village around the shop/vets, school and recreation ground) and safety. Traffic concerns do vary in some Parish settlements: Adsborough – accidents and junction visibility; Charlton – A358/A330 dualling and junction visibility; Creech Heathfield – safety; Ham – HGV traffic; Langaller – traffic noise; Walford – traffic noise, accidents, junction visibility, air quality and parking.

 More than 2 in 3 residents feel that increasing the frequency of the bus service is the most effective solution to help to reduce the traffic issues in the Parish (65%). Residents in Creech St. Michael village, Creech Heathfield, Charlton, Walford Cross and Ham appear to strongly support this solution.

 Cycle lanes are the most popular of new routes proposed in this survey. Over 9 in 10 parishioners feel a cycle lane linking Hyde Lane to Heathfield School/sporting facilities should be considered (92%), while 7 in 10 like the option of a Creech Heathfield to Creech St. Michael village cycle link (71%). Child safety on Hyde Lane (used as a regular route to secondary school) is a recurring theme, with one driver stating that they had nearly had a collision on Hyde Lane in the dark with a school child who was not dressed in appropriate reflective clothing.

A road crossing by the Bell Inn is also welcomed by the majority (69%). Virtual footpaths appear to be the least popular proposition, some feeling them to be dangerous.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 6 Facilities

 The facilities of highest importance for the overwhelming majority of residents are the medical centre, village shop and pharmacy. This is with the exception of Adsborough parishioners where the most important facilities are the pubs, churches, village hall and village shop. Respondents commented that the medical centre appears stretched with lengthy waiting times for appointments. There were also suggestions for improvements at village shop over stock, pricing, longer opening hours and improved parking.

Many attach great importance to the recreation field and play area in Creech St. Michael village. Around 1 in 4 residents commented on these facilities, many looking for more to engage secondary school age children (the largest represented family group in the survey). A wide variety of suggestions include a skate/cycle ramps/park/track, another multi use games area and tennis courts among others (more detail is also listed under the ‘Young People’ section). An area for younger children at the recreation field is mentioned, while some would like to see more appropriate use of the small playground behind the village hall, with improved access from the village hall and equipment repaired.

Staying at the recreation field, an updated, larger Pavilion to accommodate team use, with better toilets, more shelter at the park, a café, more parking and bins is another theme to emerge in comments.

Facilities of great importance to the parish are the village hall, primary school, churches, both pubs, vets and pre-school. Many comments throughout the survey were made about the Bell Inn pub, with around 1 in 10 residents wanting to see improvements not only in the building’s physical appearance, but in the pub’s management and widening the pub’s appeal within the community, particularly to attract more families to use it.

 In the long term plan additional shops located in the new development are sought (64%). Suggestions include a bakery, delicatessen, butchers, greengrocers, chip shop, family pub/restaurant, post office, dentist and an upgraded medical centre.

Half would like a new Youth club (50%) which could be organised in either existing village facilities – particularly at the village hall, or at the recreation ground (possibly located within a new building).

A similar number would like a café (48%) with indications of Creech St. Michael village being the best location using land in the area of the old garage site, the canal, land next to the Bell Inn or the recreation ground/park.

More 1 in 3 see a need for expanded sporting facilities, a new canal slipway for kayaks and a new takeaway. While around 1 in 4 would like additional parking by the canal and additional allotments (in a wide variety of locations).

Community

 Around half the residents shared suggestions and opinions on the best ways of helping new members of the community to integrate and feel part of Creech St. Michael Parish (49%). The majority of suggestions are for positive action, which in addition to showing hospitality and neighbourliness towards newcomers include

‒ printed/electronic - welcome pack, more use of the parish magazine, website updating and improved/wider use of social media ‒ meetings/communication/advertising – Parish Council meetings attendance, community/fact finding meetings, increased Parish noticeboard and use of the Village Agent ‒ whole community events – more Party in the Park-style events, newcomer’s Open Day, sports events, street party and Christmas events ‒ clubs/groups – coffee mornings/meet the village, more sport clubs and for children

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 7 ‒ management of existing resources (school places, medical centre, transport and facilities such as the pub)

A number of respondents took the opportunity to air some of the tensions they see as building within the community, such as due consideration being given to existing residents (noise, speeding, parking) and respect for the village/countryside (litter, dog fouling, fly tipping) and due control over the size and impact of developments. A small number are unsupportive of community expansion.

Housing

 The majority of respondents feel the Parish is in need of more accessible housing tailored in design for disabled people (62%). This is closely aligned with the perceived need for sheltered housing for older/disabled people (58%).

Over half would like Eco-friendly housing and low cost/starter homes for purchase to be a consideration in future developments in the Parish.

Built Environment

 St Michael’s church holds the most historical importance for the residents of Creech St. Michael Parish (80%). While the sizeable majority of nearly 2 in3 Parishioners also feel post boxes, historic bridges and the war memorial to be important. More than half also value the footbridge at Ham weir. Other suggestions in comments made were that the Bell Inn is Grade 2 listed, better weed control needed particularly where it is undermining structures such as bridges, and preservation of the paper mill.

 Green space between houses is considered by far the most important aspect in the design of any new build housing (72%). Around 2 in 5 also feel that development in keeping with traditional cottage/house style that is single/2 storey is most appropriate for the Parish. A marginally smaller number would like to see a mix of designs adopted, and around a quarter would like eco-style design to be incorporated. However, a sizeable number of Parishioners do not support any new housing in the Parish (30% - 140 households).

Green Space

 Opinion is strong surrounding all the locations suggested, with more than half of all respondents feeling all locations should all benefit from protection from new development in the future. However, the undisputable majority see the school playing field as top priority to ring-fence from development (90%). This is very closely aligned with the community recreation field and adjacent fields (88%).

Around 4 in 5 also want protection for the fields between the canal and railway, clear space between Creech St. Michael’s Parish villages and from the neighbouring Parishes and the fields behind West View.

 The overwhelming majority agree with the Parish Council’s proposal to screen sections of the motorway with trees and shrubs to reduce noise pollution (88%).

Business and Employment

 A small majority feel that the Neighbourhood Plan should actively encourage business/commercial development that will provide employment for local people (57%).

 Most feel that business incubation units offering rented mixed office/industrial space to help new business start-ups worthy of consideration (46%). This is closely aligned with space for more leisure (44%) and restaurant/food businesses (43%) both of which are areas reflected in findings for new facilities that parishioners would like e.g. café, better pub and more sporting facilities.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 8  A small number of respondents run a business in commercial premises in the Parish or from home (8% - 40 households). 12 households indicated that they will need additional workspace outside the home in the next 5 years (3%) – 6 looking to expand current businesses/ within the Parish, 2 to set up new businesses

Broadband

 The large majority of households use broadband (95%) on average for social, business and education purposes. Around 1 in 3 Parishioners are unhappy with the service provided, and those with business needs are the least satisfied (36%). Most comments surround speed and reliability of connection. Of the settlements outside Creech St. Michael village, Charlton, Ham, Langaller and Creech Heathfield appear to have pressing issues with access to full services/fibre broadband. Many quote speeds of 2mbs or below.

Young people

 For around 7 in 10 respondents the most popular facilities sought are a youth club and sports activities. More than half also felt young people would use is a cycle/running track and a woodland adventure area and play facilities. A bike/scooter ramp appears has the support of around 1 in 3 respondents.

Other sports activities and organised clubs suggested by respondents are generally based outdoors and include: tennis courts, all weather pitches, climbing wall, outdoor table tennis, exercise equipment, rowing/kayaking clubs, football club, outdoor pool, U10s & pre-school age facilities, Scout hut, pavilion, village hall clubs, sports activities aimed at girls as well as boys and a small cinema

Renewable Resources

 A small majority would like more rainwater harvesting on new buildings (59%). Other renewable resources that would be supported by more than 2 in 5 parishioners are solar panels on public buildings and additional recycling facilities in the new housing area, while PV thermal and voltaic cells on new buildings would be supported by 1 in 4 respondents. There is little support for wind turbines and solar panel arrays in fields (14% and 7% respectively).

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 9 Findings LIVING IN THE PARISH

1. What is important to you about living in Creech St. Michael (CSM) Parish?

‘Extremely important’, ‘Very important’ and ‘Somewhat important’ totals are combined in the following analysis (see presentation of data on page 4 for an explanation of how the results are ordered).

The overwhelming majority of respondents attach the highest importance to the easy access to the countryside (96% - 454 households). More than 9 in 10 respondents also value highly the Parish’s community facilities - village hall, pub, churches, school, pre-school, shop (93% - 439 households) – Chart 1. Also of high importance are the sense of community (89% - 414 households) and the Parish’s proximity to Taunton (88% - 420 households). Around 4 in 5 respondents attach high importance to the village activities/community groups (81% - 376 households) and ease of M5 motorway access (78% - 370 households).

45 respondents (9%) added other views, many commenting on village facilities (which are covered in detail later in these survey findings). Emerging themes are the medical centre and pharmacy, recreation facilities, Post Office, the shop and pub with some suggestions for improvement. An appreciation of the community, village atmosphere and friendliness is apparent, although some respondents in Adsborough feel isolated from the Creech St. Michael community. The importance of countryside, canal, river, footpaths and cycleways to some is reinforces. Some also express the desire to remain separate from Taunton and are concerned over the impact of the new housing developments in the area. Improvements to the bus service are also mentioned. See Appendix 2 for their comments.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 10 2. What concerns, if any, do you have about the developments planned for CSM Parish?

The overwhelming majority of respondents are concerned about traffic congestion (88% - 429 households) and the loss of green space (86% - 421 households) – Chart 2.

Other pressing issues for the majority are pressure on health services (66% - 322 households), lack of parking (55% - 269 households), pressure on school places (53% - 260 households) and increased road accidents (53% - 259 households).

For more than 2 in 5 households, concerns are for the impact on sense of community (47% - 227 households), increased risk of flooding (46% - 222 households) and increase in crime (41% - 199 households).

And for over 1 in 4 households inadequate sport and leisure facilities (28% - 137 households) and housing that is not suitable for needs of the community (28% - 135 households).

Around 1 in 10 respondents commented (11% - 52 households). Emerging themes were the volume of development and the impact on the village environment and identity. Road design, traffic management and volume are also of concern, particularly along Hyde Lane. Pollution (air/noise) and waste (litter/fly tipping/dog fouling) all emerged, as well as lack of public transport as in the previous question’s comments. Public toilets and older people’s housing were also raised. See Appendix 2 for comments.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 11 3. How would you like CSM Parish to be described in 20 years time?

The vision of Creech St. Michael Parish in 20 years time for the large majority is safe and friendly (81% - 393 and 391 households respectively) – Chart 3. Many would also like to see the Parish as a rural (73% - 352 households), peaceful (72% - 348 households) and green (66% -318 households) place to live.

The image below summarises the most frequently used descriptions used by the small number of respondents who added comments (7% - 32 households). The feeling overall from those commenting f these households is that they would very much like to remain as a village and not become subsumed by Taunton. See Appendix 2 for all comments.

Wordle.net

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 12 TRANSPORT

4. What are the main traffic issues in the Parish currently which affect you?

Traffic issues of paramount concern for the large majority of Parishioners in the most densely populated areas of the Parish (76% - 366 households) are the volume of vehicles in and around Creech St. Michael Parish, and the speed at which they travel (66% - 316 households) – Chart 4. Many respondents commented on specific issues which are summarised at the end of this question.

Also affecting nearly half of all Parish residents are HGV traffic (49% - 234 households), parking (48% - 230 households) and safety (47% - 226 households).

For around 1 in 3 Traffic noise (34% - 165 households) as is junction visibility (29% - 138 households), while the A358/A303 dualling (27% - 129 households), Creech Castle junction (27% - 128 households) and Air quality (24% - 117households affect around 1 in 4 households.

Accidents and verge damage appear of less concern to Parishioners overall in relation to the traffic issues listed.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 13 Further investigation shows that traffic concerns vary for some settlements outside of Creech St. Michael village. Table 1 below shows the aspects of main concern in those areas:

Table 1 - Differing main traffic concerns for settlements AREA MAIN CONCERNS Total respondents (number of respondents raising concern shown in brackets) in settlement Adsborough Accidents (7) and junction visibility (6) 9 Combe Volume (2) 2 Charlton A358/A303 dualling (3) and junction visibility (2) 4 Creech Heathfield Volume (46) , speed (41) and safety (33) 69 Ham Volume (13), HGVs and speed (10) 17 Langaller Traffic noise (2) 2 Walford Volume, noise, accidents, junction visibility, air quality, parking (1) 3

Over 1 in 3 respondents added other comments (36% - 174 households) with an outstanding proportion airing concerns about Hyde Lane and junctions particularly onto St Michael’s Road – visibility, safety of children, parking, and speed all being concerns. Others are unhappy that Creech St. Michael village is being used as a shortcut between the A38/A358 and speeding issues emerged particularly through the new development’s roads. Outside of Creech St. Michael Village, Adsborough, Walford Cross and Creech Castle/Bathpool junctions all raised concern particularly safety at the Adsborough/Maypole Pub junction and addition of a pedestrian refuge, and poor visibility due to an overgrown hedge at the Charlton Road T-junction. HGV vehicles appear an issue particularly on country lanes. Many other comments too numerous to list here are made. See Appendix 2 for detailed comments.

5. What do you think are the best ways to reduce traffic problems?

More than 2 in 3 respondents feel that increasing the frequency of the bus service will help to reduce the traffic issues in the Parish (65% - 299 households). Further investigation shows that around 6 in 10 households in Creech St. Michael village would welcome this change, and in the settlements, residents in Creech Heathfield, Charlton, Walford Cross and Ham appear to strongly support this solution – Chart 5. In terms of traffic calming, the introduction of a 20mph speed limit is as an option chosen by half of all respondents (50% - 231 households). From the additional suggestions made for location is would appear this

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 14 would primarily apply in Creech St. Michael village – more details are in the comments summary at the end of this question and in Appendix 2. A smaller proportion feel that physical traffic calming (37% - 171 households) and the widening of pavements (25% - 117 households) should be considered. While a footbridge over the railway would be a solution for around 1 in 5 (22% - 100 households). The least desirable solution appears to be traffic lights (8% - 38 households). 2 in 5 respondents (42% - 192 households) commented on locations and suggested solutions. The large majority were around the introduction of a 20mph speed limit primarily in Creech St. Michael village: North End throughout the village, Hyde Lane and around school, or from the railway bridge end to pub/shop. Creech Heathfield traffic speed is also of concern for some. Physical traffic calming measures appear frequently as a traffic calming solution in a variety of locations in Creech village and its approaches and around Creech Heathfield/Walford Cross. There were far fewer comments on the location of traffic lights, but the railway bridge/Mill Lane were among suggested locations. Introduction of pavements between Adsborough and Walford Cross, from Creech Heathfield to North End and Hyde Lane area linking towards Heathfield School are all suggested. Others felt a better bus service would improve uptake of public transport reducing some of the impact of traffic, particularly for Creech and Creech Heathfield. A pedestrian footbridge over the railway and canal was commented on by a few – one respondent reported having been hit by a car’s wing mirror while using the existing footpath. A pedestrian/zebra crossing or lollipop lady are suggestions to improve the safety of the younger children getting to the primary school. See Appendix 2 for comments.

6. Do you think that there should be an access road linking Hyde lane onto the West Monkton relief road?

Around 9 in 10 households have a view on whether Hyde Lane should have an access road linking onto the West Monkton relief road (88% - 435 households). The large majority feel that this proposition is needed(68% - 296 households) – Chart 6.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 15 7. Which pedestrian and cycle routes should be considered around the Parish?

Nearly all respondents answered this question and the overwhelming majority feel that a cycle lane linking Hyde Lane to Heathfield School/sporting facilities – Map A should be considered (92% - 411 households) – Chart 7. See Map on following page for reference.

A cycle lane between Creech Heathfield and CSM village – Map B (71% - 301 households) and a road crossing by the Bell Inn (69% - 294 households) are both the next most popular choices.

Although majority would also like the following three options considered, there are much larger numbers of respondents who feel unable to comment on whether these should be considered (‘Don’t knows’):

‒ Road crossing Hyde Lane (64% - 259 households) ‒ Canal footbridge Crufts Meadow/Larkfleet – Map C (61% - 244 households) ‒ Footbridge by railway bridge – Map D (59% - 237 households)

Virtual footpaths appear the least popular proposition (29% - 78 households). Around 1 in 5 respondents commented (18% - 86 households). Whilst not everyone in this group appears to be in support of virtual footpaths, some feeling them to be dangerous, the most frequently cited locations are Hyde Lane, North End to Creech Heathfield and North End to Worthy Lane. See Appendix 2 for comments.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 16

8. Please tell us if there are any other areas of the Parish that need better links

Around 1 in 5 respondents commented (18% - 87 households). Many answers reflected previous findings and comments associated with Questions 4, 5 and 7. Child safety on Hyde Lane (used as a regular route to secondary school) is a recurring theme, with one driver stating that they had nearly had a collision on Hyde Lane in the dark with a school child who was not dressed in appropriate reflective clothing. Foothpaths and Cycle Ways reflect mainly the locations highlighted previously with the addition of Langaller and Ruishton.

Others mentioned traffic/road improvements around the Parish and beyond - particularly the A358 junctions exiting Creech St. Michael. Speeding/traffic calming at a variety of locations around Creech village are suggested. Improved public transport is sought in locations across the whole Parish. Pedestrian bridge linking Creech to Ruishton would be welcomed by some.

See Appendix 2 for comments.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 17 FACILITIES

9 How important to you, individually or as a household, are the following Parish facilities?

Chart 8a shows the breakdown of overall importance for each separate aspect and are ordered according to their respective overall rating score (see presentation of data on page 4 for an explanation of how the results are ordered).

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 18 For the following analyses and charts, ‘Extremely important’, ‘Very important’ and ‘Somewhat important’ totals are combined.

The Parish facilities of highest importance for the overwhelming majority of Parishioners are the Village shop Medical centre and the Pharmacy (Charts 8ii-8iv). This is with the exception of those living in Adsborough where the top three aspects vary. Table 2 below shows the top 3 most important facilities for these residents:

Table 2 - Differing highest importance facilities for Adsborough AREA TOP 3 MOST IMPORTANT FACILIITES Total respondents in settlement 1st pubs 9 Adsborough 2nd churches = 3rd village hall and village shop

Chart 8ii Village shop (98% - 474 households – Chart 8ii) where improvements to stock, pricing, longer opening hours (shop and post office) and parking are suggested. Some commented on the opportunities the shop provides as a community facility where people can meet.

Chart 8iii Medical centre (94% - 455 households– Chart 8iii. Although a small number commented that the facility appears to be stretched, with a need for more doctors and to reduce the waiting time for appointments.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 19 Chart 8iv Pharmacy (94% - 454 households– Chart 8iv). Clearly viewed as a highly important community asset, this was facility not commented on in detail by respondents.

The recreation field and play area in Creech St. Michael village are also of great importance to more Chart 8v than 4 in 5 Parishioners (84% -387 households - Chart 8v). There are many additional comments provided in support of this facility and suggestions for additions and improvements at the end of this section.

For the large majority (79% - 60%) the village hall, churches, pubs (Bell/Maypole), primary school, vets, pavilion and pre-school) and key parish facilities (Charts 8vi – 8xii).

Chart 8vi The village hall (79% - 375 households – Chart 8vi), commented on throughout the survey, appears to be a hub for the whole community providing the opportunity for multiple activities – meetings, exercise/adult classes, events, social activities, entertainment. Opportunities for upgrading and widening activities/events on offer are also included in respondent’s comments throughout Appendix 2.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 20 Churches (70% - 327 households – Chart 8vii). In Chart 8vii addition to being a place of worship, the churches are also seen as a focal point for providing information about activities and events in the parish particularly through the newsletter.

A similar level of importance of the churches is also reaffirmed later in the survey where St Michael’s church is also highly valued for its historical significance.

Chart 8viii The Bell Inn and The Maypole pubs (68% - 319 households – Chart 8viii). Similar to the village shop, the pub appears to be viewed not only as a business but as an opportunity for the community to integrate. Quite a large proportion of respondents comment that the Bell Inn facility does not appear to be fulfilling this purpose for the whole community. Many desire physical improvements to bring the building and garden into line with other neighbouring pubs and to avoid the facility to fall into severe disrepair. They would also like to see the management strive to appeal to a wider demographic than the current facility appears to serve e.g. more for families/improved food.

Chart 8ix Primary school (67% - 303 households – Chart 8ix). Some respondents would like to see a plan for the expansion/improvement of the school’s facilities, particularly with an increasing population, the attendant pressure on school places and infrastructure (temporary classrooms, adequate parking for staff and safe child drop off). This facility is also viewed as a resource for community engagement, particularly through dissemination of information to new parent joiners, and through wider use of the school’s resources for the community out of school hours – school hall and sporting facilities.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 21 Chart 8x Vets (65% - 296 households – Chart 8x). Generally comments regarding this facility relate to traffic congestion which is covered in detail in comments relating to the Transport section of this survey.

Pavilion (64% - 274 households – Chart 8xi). An Chart 8xi updated, larger Pavilion to accommodate team use, with better toilets, more shelter at the park, a café, more parking and bins are all commented on in detail in Appendix 2 under this section.

Chart 8xii Pre-school (60% - 266 households – Chart 8xii), similar to the primary school a view was shared on the need for pre-school to expand to accommodate higher numbers of children moving into the area.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 22 More than half the respondents value the Hairdressers (57% - 265 households – Chart 8xiii) and the Children’s centre (53%% - 232 households – Chart 8xiv).

Chart 8xiv Chart 8xiii

Although considered less importance to the overall majority, more than 2 in 5 respondents value the Undertakers (47% - 214 households – Chart 8xv), Karebears Childcare (43% - 189 households – Chart 8xvi) and Taunton Model Engineers (TME) (41% - 182 households – Chart 8xvii).

Chart 8xvi Chart 8xvii

Chart 8xv

Do you think improvements are needed to any existing recreational facilities? Around 1 in 4 respondents commented (24% - 116 respondents). More recreation facilities are sought CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 23 for secondary school age children, suggestions include skate/cycle ramps/park/track, another multi use games area, tennis court, running track, more room for football pitches, cricket nets, basketball courts and outdoor gym equipment. An area for younger children at the recreation field is also mentioned. While some would like to see more appropriate use of the small playground behind the village hall, with improved signage and updated equipment or re-siting it to the recreation field.

An updated, larger Pavilion to accommodate team use, with better toilets, more shelter at the park, a café, more parking and bins is another theme to emerge. Others suggested extension of the TME track or to allow dog walkers access on recreation field. A few respondents specifically commented on the need for more dog litter bins in a number of locations and dog waste is a recurring theme in comments throughout the survey (directly 17 households – 3%). See Appendix 2 for comments.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 24 10. With future urban expansion of the Parish and existing community needs changing in the next 20 years, what new facilities, if any, would you like to see and where they should be located?

2 in 3 respondents would like to see Additional shops located in the new development in the long term plan (64% - 300 households) – Chart 9.

Half would like a new Youth club (50% - 238 households) which is closely aligned with those wanting a café (48% - 22 households).

More 1 in 3 see a need for expanded sporting facilities (39% - 182 households), a new canal slipway for kayaks (37% - 173 households) and a new takeaway (36% - 168 households). While around 1 in 4 would like additional parking by the canal (29% - 137 households) and additional allotments (25% - 116 households).

A small number of respondents would not like to see any changes to facilities to be made in the medium to long term (6% - 29 households).

‘Other’ suggestions for new facilities and preferred location of these facilities

166 respondent comments are combined around this issue. Suggestions for additional shops/businesses include a bakery, delicatessen, butchers, greengrocers, chip shop, family pub/restaurant, post office, dentist and an upgraded medical centre. Of those commenting specifically on location, marginally more respondents would like new facilities located in Creech St. Michael village as opposed to the new developments.

Many appear to want the café sited centrally in Creech St. Michael village. Specific locations include, the old garage site, the canal, land next to the Bell Inn and the recreation ground/park. A smaller number would like a café/variety of facilities sited in the new developments. Fewer commented on a takeaway, and marginally more comments appear in support of this being located in Creech St. Michael. Land by The Bell Inn was suggested.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 25 The park/playing field/rec ground are the most frequently mentioned locations for the sporting facilities. Additional suggestions to those made previously include a large community hall for 5-a-side football, all weather facilities, golf club, outdoor swimming pool, facilities for squash, table tennis, climbing wall, trampolines, archery, shooting, baby changing facilities, rowing mobility and bike hire, rowing on river, athletics on cycle track.

A youth club could be organised in either existing village facilities – particularly at the village hall, or at the recreation ground (possibly located within a new building).

Canal slipway suggestions were mostly to be sited near the existing canal car park. Other locations are by the canal bridge where steps are or by the railway line. Any additional parking to be located close to the existing parking near the canal.

A variety of locations for allotments include in Creech St. Michael village centre or to the south, between Creech and Bathpool. In or within reach of the new development, adjoining the motorway, adjacent to existing allotments north of Creech Heathfield or within walking distance of the villages. See Appendix 2 for comments.

COMMUNITY

12. With so many people set to join our community, what do you feel are the best ways of helping them to integrate and to feel part of CSM Parish?

Just under half of all respondents (49% - 241 households) provided suggestions and opinions on the best ways of helping new members of the community to integrate and feel part of Creech St. Michael Parish. In addition to showing hospitality and neighbourliness towards newcomers, a wide range of suggestions include:

Printed/electronic communications  Welcome pack  Parish magazine, a more regular newsletter, delivery to residents  Promotion of Parish website and updating the website (appearance and regular events)  Better use of social media to promote/report on events

Meetings/communication/advertising  More encouragement to attend Parish Council meetings  Community meetings/fact finding consultations  More Parish noticeboards  Increased use of the Village Agent

Whole community events  More events like Party in the Park  Open day for newcomers  Sports events  Street party  Christmas events

Clubs/Groups  Coffee mornings/meet the village  More – sport, for children, different/diverse clubs

Management of existing resources  Pressure on school places, medical centre, transport and facilities CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 26 Improved facilities: mostly summarised in the previous questions, but particular emphasis again on the pub in the village and its potential as a focal point to draw members of the wider community in.

A number of respondents took this opportunity to air some of the tensions they see as building within the community:  Consideration for needs of existing residents – noise, speeding, parking  Respect for the village/countryside – litter, clearing up dog mess, fly tipping  Make an effort to join in existing community events  Control the size of developments

A small number are unsupportive of community expansion. See Appendix 2 for all comments.

HOUSING

12. What kind of housing do you think is needed most in the Parish?

The majority of respondents feel the Parish is in need of more accessible housing tailored in design for disabled people (62% - 230 households). This is closely aligned with the perceived need for Sheltered housing for older/disabled people (58% - 227 households) – Chart 10.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 27 Other housing considered to be needed by the majority are:

‒ Eco friendly housing (53% - 183 households) ‒ Low cost/starter homes for purchase (53% - 209 households) – although higher numbers are in support of increasing the numbers of these homes, a higher proportion of respondents answering this question feel that there are already too many of this housing type

Although the following facilities are important to some members of the Parish, they are not universally accepted as important by the overall majority answering the question:

‒ Retirement housing (48% - 188 households) ‒ Affordable housing for local people who can’t afford open market (45% - 195 households) ‒ Bungalows (39% - 150 households) ‒ Single occupancy housing (38% - 134 households) ‒ Family housing (33% - 126 households)

Luxury housing, flats and rented accommodation are all considered in plentiful supply by a large majority.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

13. Which of the following historic buildings and features are important to you?

St Michael’s church holds the most historical importance for the residents of Creech St. Michael Parish (80% - 375 households) – Chart 11.

Post boxes, historic bridges and the war memorial are also important the sizeable majority of around 2 in3 Parishioners (64% - 299 households; 62% - 293 and 292 households respectively), and just over half the respondents value the footbridge at Ham weir (51% - 239 households).

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 28 For a sizeable number of respondents pill boxes (46% - 216 households), the viaduct (40% - 186 households), metal finger posts (37% - 176 households) and phone boxes (28% - 132 households) are to be noted for their historical importance in the Parish.

For a small minority, these historic buildings and features held no importance (5% - 25 households).

12% of respondents commented (59 households), and a recurring theme throughout the survey is the Bell Inn pub – respondents are concerned about its poor exterior appearance. One respondent highlighted that the building is Grade 2 listed. Others would like to see better weed control, maintenance of finger posts, restoration of pill boxes and addition of an information plaque, retention of telephone and post boxes, railway bridge painting, re-opening of railway line, improvement to the river bridge, preservation of the paper mill, changes at the recreation ground. See Appendix 2 for comments.

14. What is important to you in the design of new build housing?

Green space between houses is considered by the large majority to be highly important in the design of any new build housing (72% - 342 households) – Chart 12.

Many also consider development that is in keeping with traditional cottage/house style to be appropriate for the Parish (43% - 203 households), and single or 2 storey buildings that fit in with existing housing (37% - 174 households).

A smaller number would like to see a mix of designs adopted for new developments (35% - 163 households), or eco-style design being incorporated (26% - 123 households).

However, a sizeable number of Parishioners do not support any new housing in the Parish (30% - 140 households).

67 respondents commented (14%), with the large majority highlighting their desire to see no more development in the area. Others commented on the need for parking, sympathetically planned development, green space and infrastructure. See Appendix 2 for detailed comments.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 29 GREEN SPACE

15. In your opinion which of these areas should be protected for future generations or from development?

Opinion is strong surrounding all the locations suggested, with more than half of all respondents feeling all locations should all benefit from protection from new development in the future. However, the undisputable majority see the school playing field as top priority to ring-fence from development (90% - 435 households) – Chart 13. This is very closely aligned with the community recreation field and adjacent fields (88% - 423 households).

Around 4 in 5 Parishioners also attached high importance to the protection of the fields between the canal and railway (82% - 393 households), clear space between Creech St. Michael’s Parish villages (81% - 389 households) and from the neighbouring Parishes (79% - 380 households) and the fields behind West View (78% - 374 households).

The fields north of the motorway at Langaller/Manor Farm (62% - 301 households) and the area by The Bell Inn (57% - 275 households) require protection in the opinion of a sizeable majority.

1 in 10 respondents commented (10% - 48 households) with a wide variety of locations for protection, particularly to the East of Creech St. Michael village, Dillons Road, Adsborough, Thurloxton and Walford Cross and Ham. See Appendix 2 for more comments.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 30 16. Do you agree with the Parish Council’s proposal to screen sections of the motorway with trees and shrubs to reduce noise pollution?

The overwhelming majority agree with the Parish Council’s proposal to screen sections of the motorway with trees and shrubs to reduce noise pollution (88% - 418 households).

71 respondents shared their views (15%).

Many commented on their support for the proposal, however, others were concerned over how this would be funded. See Appendix 2 for comments.

BUSINESS AND EMPLOYMENT

17. Should the Neighbourhood Plan encourage business/commercial development that provides local employment?

A small majority feel that the Neighbourhood Plan should actively encourage business/commercial development that will provide employment for local people (57% - 268 households) – Chart 15.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 31 Around 1 in 10 respondents commented (13% - 63 households). Emerging themes are for the support of SMEs, and in addition to tradition businesses that agricultural and traditional/artisan trades also be considered. Exploiting existing sites such as The Mill area come up frequently, as does transport/access, impact of businesses on residents and the infrastructure needed to support/attract businesses e.g. fibre broadband. Additionally a small number of comments were made by the existing business community. See Appendix 2 for full comments.

18. What kind of workspace do you think would be most useful to provide in the Parish?

Of those answering the question (84% of all respondents), most feel that business incubation units offering rented mixed office/industrial space to help new business start-ups worthy of consideration (46% - 190 households) – Chart 16.

This is closely aligned to the provision of space for more leisure related businesses (44% - 180 households) and restaurant/food businesses (43% - 179 households). 1 in 3 respondents see the provision of light industrial workspace of benefit to the Parish (33% - 138 households).

Provision of additional retail space is of lower priority overall with around 1 in 5 respondents supporting this view (21% - 86 households), while provision of manufacturing space is the lowest priority in this survey with less than 1 in 10 respondents seeing it as a priority area (9% - 38 households).

44 people commented (11%) and the majority of these did not want to see any more workspace provided (26 people). Of those who would support business development much of it is in the retail sector mostly already covered in the facilities section of the survey. See Appendix 2 for more detail.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 32 19. Do you run a business in commercial premises in the Parish or from your home?

Around 8% of respondents run a business in commercial premises in the Parish or from home (40 households) – Chart 17.

20. Will you need additional workspace outside the home in the next 5 years?

3% of these respondents (12 households) indicated that they will need additional workspace outside the home in the next 5 years –Chart 18.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 33  12 households commented (3%) and of these 4 currently run businesses in the Parish. They are looking for: ‒ Office space with parking/security; Small, light industrial unit; Lock up store for tools; Community green space to run fitness activities

 6 others are looking to relocate/set up a new business in the next 5 years. ‒ 2 specifically within the Parish, looking for: office space/unit to store stock and dance studio/wellbeing rooms ‒ 2 others will look outside the Parish, one for office space and the other because there is no suitably sized space for their needs in the Parish.

The other respondents who also commented do not own or plan to run businesses in the Parish within the relative time period. See Appendix 2 for comments.

BROADBAND

21 How adequate is your Broadband connection for you and your household?

The large majority of households use broadband (95%), only a small number of respondents answering the question had no broadband access (5% average).

For 1 in 3 respondents who use broadband for their business needs (36% - 92 households), the service provided is felt to be inadequate. The proportion finding broadband provision inadequate for their social (32% - 142 households) and educational needs (31% - 85 households) are is similar – Chart 19.

More than 1 in 4 Parishioners who are not satisfied with their Broadband service commented (27% - 125 people). Of the settlements outside Creech St. Michael village, Charlton, Ham, Langaller and Creech Heathfield appear to have pressing issues particularly with access to full services/fibre broadband. For the large majority of all respondents including Creech St. Michael village residents speed and reliability are key issues. Many quote speeds of 2mbs or below. See Appendix 2 for all comments.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 34 YOUNG PEOPLE

22. What facilities would be useful to benefit young people and children in our community?

The most popular facilities suggested by the large majority are a youth club (72% - 321 households) and sports activities (71% - 318 households) – Chart 20.

More than half also felt young people would use is a cycle/running track (58% - 260 households) and a woodland adventure area (57% - 256 households). Play facilities were also suggested by a marginal majority (53% - 239 households), while a bike/scooter ramp appears the least appealing facility of those in the question, although 3 in 10 households feel these facilities would benefit the younger members of the community (30% - 133 households).

Around 1 in 10 respondents added suggestions (9% - 40 households), the majority of being for facilities which are accessible outdoors. In addition to the choices offered in the question these include:  Tennis court  All weather pitches  Climbing wall  Outdoor table tennis  Exercise equipment  Rowing/kayaking clubs  Football club  Outdoor pool  U10s & pre-school age facilities  Scout hut  Pavilion  Village hall clubs  Sports activities aimed at girls as well as boys  Small cinema

See Appendix 2 for all comments.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 35 RENEWABLE RESOURCES

23. Which of the following would you like to see in the Parish?

A small majority would like more rainwater harvesting on new buildings (59% - 270 households) – Chart 21.

Other renewable resources that would be supported are solar panels on public buildings (44% - 201 households), additional recycling facilities in the new housing area (43% - 196 households), PV thermal and voltaic cells on new buildings (25% - 113 households). Wind turbines (14% - 62 households) and solar panel arrays in fields (7% - 31 households) have much less public support.

1 in 5 respondents would not support any of the renewable resources suggested (20% - 93 households).

5% of respondents commented (25 people) and other renewable suggestions include:  Hydro solutions – Rive Tone  Heat exchange pumps for new builds  Carbon capture forest planting – Map G

See Appendix 2 for all comments.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 36 DEMOGRAPHICS

24. Which settlement are you from?

There is representation from across the Parish, with the outstanding majority, 4 in 5 respondents living in Creech St. Michael village (79% - 383 people).

In the settlements the largest proportion are from Creech Heathfield (14% - 69 households), followed by Ham (3% - 17 households), Adsborough (2% - 9 households), Charlton (1% - 4 households), Walford (1% - 3 households), Langaller and Combe (0.5% - 2 households respectively).

Just one respondent was from outside the Parish (Henlade).

25. How long have you lived in the Parish?

The majority of respondents have lived in the Parish for more than 10 years (2 in 3 households – 63%), and overall, nearly half have been resident in the Parish for 20 or more years (47% - 226 households) – Chart 22.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 37 25. Please indicate the number of people in each age group living in your household

Chart 23 – Overall household age groups Base 456 households with 1179 people

45-64 year olds are the largest overall population represented by over 1 in 4 respondents (28%) – Chart 23. There are twice as many working age respondents taking part in this survey compared to retired respondents (52% : 26% respectively). Further analysis shows that the overall population represented maps closely to the 2011 census figures (census data table QS103EW) – Table 3. However this survey analysis does not seek to differentiate the views of particular age groups, rather it represents the Parish population as a whole, or draws comparisons between the main Creech St. Michael village and other Parish settlements.

Further analysis also shows that more than 1 in 4 respondents are families with children aged 18 or under (27% - 134 families), and of these the small majority - 2 in 5 - have children aged between 11-18 (40% - 53 families).

Table 3 – ONS Data vs Survey Respondents SURVEY AGE RANGE ONS DATA RESPONDENETS 0-4 5% 5% 5-10 6% 6% 11-18 10% 11% 19-24 6% 4% 25-44 18% 19% 45-64 28% 30% 65-74 15% 13% 75+ 11% 12%

Additional comments and suggestions Some respondents made attached comments and suggestions which can be found at the end of Appendix 2.

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SURVEY REPORT . NOVEMBER 2016 | 38 Appendix 1 – Questionnaire

Appendix 2 – Verbatim & end of survey ‘Additional Comments’

Where respondents have commented on multiple issues, comments are generally sorted according to the first aspect commented on Q1 – IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS OF LIVING IN CREECH ST. MICHAEL PARISH

Facilities Doctors surgery and pharmacy extremely important. Medical Centre and chemist. Library access & GP surgery extremely important. The pub and shop in the middle of the village. Pub. Park. Play areas, events, sports and social gatherings thoughtful neighbours, cleanliness, well-kept/maintained. Playing fields and model railway. Post office. Vehicle Service, the canal, post office, veterinary surgery. Having a golf course!! The shop needs expanding. Need more GP's at the surgery as more people now in area. Community cafe please. Take away, coffee shop. Pub needs upgrading and to be involved in community projects e.g. organic boxes delivered there, coffee shop selling food that is locally sourced. We need a smarter pub! Dreadful pub (The Bell). That’s why we don't use facilities. We were very disappointed when we moved to village. A shame.

Community We moved to Creech 1 year ago and the fact it seems to be a "family area" was important to us as well as a sense of security. A village lifestyle & its relative tranquillity. Friendliness. Being surrounded by fields. Being close to family. Being close to other family members, medical centre proximity. Newsletter ideally more frequent. Adsborough and Coombe have no reason to go to CSM and therefore we know little about what goes on in that village. Adsborough residents tend to use the village hall & church in Thurloxton since we are in that ecclesiastical Parish.

Environment/location Feeling that we live in the countryside being able to cycle down the canal go for a nice walk we are very dismayed that is under threat by new building. Canal, river, footpath. Access to quiet cycle routes, access to the canal as an amenity (both very important).

Important that public footpaths/ bridgeways are maintained and kept intact. Sense of space and open countryside nearby. Its countryside and should stay that way!! Living in a peaceful environment (which I am not getting at the moment).

Proximity to Taunton/Convenience/Impact of New Development It’s important for CSM to have a village identity and not be "lumped" in with Taunton. For it to remain a village and not joined on to Taunton. We don't want to be engulfed by new development, we will soon no longer be a village!!! How long will it be a village? To retain our status as a village by stopping anymore building as we are already overcrowded plus too many cars and parking on pavements. Already ruined by the new Langaller relief road to Bathpool and proposed building.

Transport/Traffic Regular bus service, doctors, pharmacy. Sensible bus service. 1 bus every 3hrs is a joke. Better bus service. Safer routes for our children to schools. Footpaths etc...Regulation of transport along Hyde Lane.

Other Proximity of Heathfield School (catchment area school). It seems that development is happening yet the local authorities are not looking after what they are supposed to. TME. Pleasant environment. My husband have very different opinions, so one view per household is not giving a fair view!

Q2 – PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS

Development/design Lack of vision. All developments in last 10 years are very poor. Too many houses for a village, no transport. Totally over developed. Overdevelopment. This area is already over developed with no new roads into Taunton. New build developments lack imagination and too many. Since minutes away from Parish council have not been published we have no idea of which development is planned. No bungalows in the development - too much building. Bungalows needed. Toilets at rec. New developments need to include many more bungalows to meet needs of current residents in coming years. Three storey buildings have no place in a village environment. Need more off road parking for new housing. New housing with better sound-proofing.

Road infrastructure/traffic Lack of planning sense - no real research done on practical issues such as width of roads - parking prohibition on corners in particular. Hyde Lane not adequate for traffic volume. No road improvements to Hyde Lane. New house in Hyde Lane have causing more traffic and risk of serious accident. New roundabouts are terribly designed. Poorly designed roads which increased risk of accidents. Quiet lanes/ road become rat runs due to congestion. Roads are not wide or safe enough to accommodate more traffic. Use of CSM as rat run from A38>A358. Parking on blind bend - Arundel’s Way. Speed of traffic through village centre!! (20mph required through centre by shop).

Village identity It can change the complete character of the village (if you can still call it a village). It’s been spoiled already. Loss of village identity. Loosing being a village and being joined up to new Bathpool developments. Loss of countryside to housing. Loss of village atmosphere. Loss of village environment, massive increase of traffic through village & the consequential increase in traffic noise & pollution. Merging into other villages, proximity of M5 for future expansion. We are losing our village identity and will soon just be the outer edge of town. We love this village the way it is the amount of houses that have been built already are giving quick sent Michael the loss of the village feel. We do not need any more houses in Crete sent Michael this is a real village and we want to keep it that way.

Public transport Lack of adequate bus service for increased population. Lack of public transport. No public transport (or inadequate). Public transport is inadequate and too far from most sources of employment to walk means increased commuters in cars and congestion.

Environmental impact/pollution/litter Air quality. Impact on environment (pollution, rubbish and waste) Motorway noise. Litter, fly tipping, noise pollution!! Increase in level of dog waste and litter which is already excessive. Overcrowded, litter and dog fouling.

Older people

Not enough OAP bungalows. For elderly people the Hyde Lane end of Creech is too far away to get to the village hall and other facilities.

Facilities Not enough infrastructure like shops.

Other We have no public toilets. Too many children playing in residential estates creating noise + disturbance for other residents. Cyclist on pavements (young and old). The major disruption and stress caused to those living on Hollingsworth Park with non-stop building and development for the past 5+ years is at times unbearable. The reasons that bought us to the village are quickly disappearing. The promised sense of calm and rural setting are being taken away from us by these greedy developers. I am an NHS nurse and required to work shifts, frequently nights. It is impossible to try and sleep during the day. The council should also have made provision for a footpath so residents and children walking to and from school were safeguarded against potentials road traffic collisions along Hyde Lane, not leave it to developers so they seemingly have the moral high ground by providing a path whichever should have been part of the original negotiations with David Wilson homes. We cannot comment without knowing what is proposed. This should be attached. The Parish of Creech Saint Michael has already excepted [sic] more new houses than any other Parish in the Taunton Deane area although we except we should take our first share I feel that it is on fair that richer more powerful Parishes have not been obligated to take their share. At present the new urban extension is being provided with all the current facilities i.e. adequate bus services cycle lanes and footpath green spaces shopping facilities sports and community facilities and schools well we've existing inhabitants are left as second-class citizens unless we can expect at least the same standard as being applied to the new developments we should vigorously oppose any further urban expansion.

Q3 – 20 YEAR VISION OF CREECH

A desirable place to live. Desirable village. The place to live'. Lively caring community. Neighbourly. Special. Efficient. Employment is needed to sustain population in area. Considerate to all ages / catering for all. Vibrant does not mean always noisy and busy. A nice 'village' close enough to town and travel but still a village! A village that is not part of Taunton conurbation. To still retain 'village' entity and not be a Taunton suburb. Still recognisable as a village. A collection of villages and not one joined inter connecting sprawl of Taunton or each other. Separate from Taunton and other Parishes. Not a suburb of Taunton, still a separate village.

No more houses please we don't want to be looking at concrete. Build no more houses. No bigger than it is now! No change. This is becoming more like a town with 3500 new homes being built. Where has our village [gone]? We are becoming part of Taunton itself and B/water. Like it has for the last 100 years you got Taunton if you want town. Countryside. Green - as in countryside. Sustainable - amount of building i.e. size and access. Distinctive - not a Taunton suburb Still surrounded in green field. Accessible by public transport. How about over grown/ lack of maintenance. Are not these a given! I don't think any of the above will apply. It is already distinctive as an urban fringe bungaloid nonentity. Pity (Other comments by respondent - Beautiful = oxymoron. Sustainable = what does this mean?)

Q4 – TRANSPORT – CONCERNS OVER TRAFFIC ISSUES

Volume and speed Congestion because of over populating a small village especially as we are now used as a rat run from A358 to new A38 junction/roundabout. A358/A303 - rat run through CSM. Turning right after bridges into Bull Street and turning left out Bull Street to go over the bridge - ongoing traffic often don't see us! Parish now rat run from A38 to A358 especially from 3.30 onwards. Parking on pavements and blocked drives. Creech St Michael being used as a rat run from A358. Quantity of traffic using the village as a shortcut. 20mph speed limits should be by school and housing estate where children are. More buses. Reduced speed required through village centre to 20mph. Should be 20 mph limit in Ham. Cars racing late at night along new A38 route. Speed and Volume - with new estate. HVG - with current building sites. Speed bumps- whilst limiting speed they are not good for our car suspension and don’t feel they are much deterrent overall to safe driving . Speed is horrendous. Speed limit between CSM and Creech Heathfield. Speed of traffic on Creech Heathfield road combined with lack of visibility when emerging from our driveway. National speed limit from Langaller to North End. No pedestrian crossing in centre of Creech. No footpath Hyde Lane to Bathpool. Lack of cycle paths. Poor bus service. I feel there should be speed control system in place round main park area and road through from motorway bridge to doctor’s surgery. Too many speed humps some are very sharp. Worried will damaged car over time.

Parking

Parking in centre chaos. Accidents - Walford Cross. HGV-on roads marked not suitable for HGV's. Safety - Creech Castle junction-inadequate. Parking outside village shop and primary school. Parking - by the shop at peak periods. St Michaels Road used as a rat run between A358/A38/A361. Since the park and ride opened I have witnessed commuters using the CSM/Ruishton to access the p&r on A358. Travelling through the villages, from A388 A361. Junction visibility- failure of the county council to cut the verge on St Michaels Road by the St Michaels close junction. The owner(s) of treetops were taken this up with SCC and still they dispute owning the offending grass verge. Volume - at rush hours/school time. Speed - through traffic can ignore speed limits. Parking opposite Larkfleet homes junction. New houses have inadequate parking facilities and should be made to use drive-ins not clog the roads, especially service vans, and large commercial vehicles.

SPECIFIC LOCATIONS - OUTSIDE CSM VILLAGE ADSBOROUGH A38 Maypole inn Adsborough. (2) Adsborough Hill - 50 mph not stuck to by motorist. Both Adsborough junctions with the A38. Note: Adsborough is still awaiting the long promised pedestrian refuge on the A38 so that children home from school and the elderly can in safety. There is still no central pedestrian refuge on A38 at the maypole crossroads or bus layby- a question that has been going on for years! A38 Maypole inn Adsborough and multiple roundabouts through Monkton Heathfield increased distance and stop/start pollution and noise. Sounds like a race track at night on A38. WALFORD CROSS Walford cross. Walford cross turning right into Creech Heathfield. More mowing of grass verges at Walford Cross. A361/A38. Junction - A38 Walford cross/ junction CREECH CASTLE/BATHPOOL Creech Castle is busy now, let alone with this development. Creech Castle Junction - should be a roundabout. On new roundabout joining Bridgwater Road near Bathpool because of new housing advertising signs it blocks view for pedestrian crossing and at new round (1st one out of Langaller) visibility poor when leaving cycle path to join main road. Slip road from Taunton into Bathpool Road, poor visibility, shrubs too high, blocking view of traffic coming from right.

SPECIFIC LOCATIONS - CSM VILLAGE HYDE LANE Hyde lane. (2) Hyde lane - Childs safety walking through Hyde Lane. Hyde Lane- school children walking in road due to no pathways, no lighting, also width of road decreased due to uncut hedging (ongoing). Heathfield pupils on foot along Hyde Lane. Around Creech Primary School New road right on school especially pre-school entrance very dangerous. Hopkins Field onto Hyde lane. (2)

Junction at end of Hopkins Field, school parking over junction and visibility of oncoming traffic non-existent, dangerous for drivers and children. Hyde Lane junction into St. Michaels Road. (8) Hyde lane meets St Michaels Road due parked vehicles. Hyde Lane - From Hyde lane into St Michaels Road bad visibility on right due to layby parking. Hyde Lane - End of Hyde Lane by veterinary premises Hyde lane on to main Creech Road and turning from Creech to Ruishton as hedges etc. block visibility. Hyde Lane to St Michael Rd. Poor, narrow pavements. Extreme danger of Hyde lane around school. Hyde Lane entrance to village and safety of my boys walking and cycling to Heathfield. Hyde lane junction by vets - parked traffic reduces vision coming by the shop. Hyde Lane - Turning from Hyde Lane into St Michael’s Road by the vets and the road narrowing section before the speed bumps - not needed to many near misses where people try to beat oncoming traffic - speed bumps are sufficient. Hyde lane just past health centre where new development being built. Car often parked on that corner & not easy to see oncoming traffic. Junction visibility: western end of Hyde Lane. Area + route should be pedestrianised + traffic calming for vehicles. Hyde Lane - Due to increased parking in Hyde Lane visibility is poor on all bends and the junction with the new Larkfleet development. Leighton Drive to Hyde Lane. Hyde Lane - very dangerous all along Hyde Lane, not fit for its purpose. Night speeding along Hyde Lane. Takes 5 minutes to get out of Hyde Lane past school traffic. They need provisions. The junction of the new Larkfleet homes and proposed further development onto Hyde Lane Hyde Lane - Visibility at all junctions from and onto Hyde lane especially coming out onto the main Creech road due to parked cars by shop/vets. Hyde Lane is not suitable for the volume of traffic it creates. The safety of pedestrians is also a concern. Parking of large vans and commercial vehicles on Hyde Lane. Hyde Lane - volume on Hyde Lane and dualling needs to be done asap. West view gardens. Hyde lane. West View into Hyde Lane because of parked vehicles. Pavement condition very poor for pedestrians and those who have disability buggies travel on the road to avoid the potholes in them. No pedestrian crossing on St Michael’s Road. One is needed if traffic continues to increase. West View into Hyde Lane-Hyde Lane crossing to doctors. What about the buses into Taunton! One every 3 hrs is not acceptable- we need one an hour as before. Access from West View Gardens on to Hyde Lane Junction of Meredith Close + Hyde Lane always has large vans parked at junction causing poor visibility and several near misses. Parking on Hyde lane (by Meredith Close) is dangerous, as we cannot see coming out of the junction. Police + council informed, action taken = ZERO! Not really a junction but coming round past the park is very dangerous with cars parked along bend - visibility is very poor. Road leading past the park and through down to the rugby club is full of blind spots and kids on bikes etc. Incredibly dangerous especially as night draw in. CHARLTON RD Charlton Rd junction at Creech Heathfield. Ham Lane junction by slaughter house. Safety concerns about vehicles/ pedestrians/children in vicinity of school, CSM. Charlton Road junction with main road - hedge needs to be cut back at least 3 feet.

End of Charlton Road, huge hedge on the left blocks view - had some near misses! Hedge to south of Charlton Rd exit at T-Junction. Junction at end of Charlton Rd and Lips Lane. Junction visibility at Charlton Road and Crown Lane Charlton road junction. LABURNAM TERRACE Junction visibility - Laburnum Terrace Laburnum Terrace - we have little/ no visibility coming out of our road. It is not safe, especially with children. I can only just fit on the footpaths on the bridges with the pram. The paths are so narrow and the traffic is so fast it’s extremely dangerous. Junctions of laburnum terrace and Curvalion Road both ends - extremely dangerous. Laburnum terrace - Curvalion Road. Road crossing at this point is very dangerous especially for adults with small children. No pavements. Laburnam Terrace to St Michael Road - there is going to be an accident here before long - may be fatal. Junction of Laburnum Terrace, Curvalion Road. Ann's close SP motors with St Michaels Road, 20 mph needed, Cars, tractors, lorries all over speed limits. Visibility coming from Laburnum terrace joining main road. I live in Laburnum Terrace and exiting is getting harder all the time especially mornings going to be a nasty accident with the cars speeding up our end of the village. LIPE LANE Lipe Lane junction on A358 turning right onto Creech Heathfield Road. Poor visibility at night. Lipe Lane becoming a rat run to A38. Lipe Lane/ Ruishton. Lipe lane/Cheats lane junction. St Michaels/ Dillons Road junction. Vicarage Lane/ Bull Street junction. Turning right from one way bridge into Bull St turning left or right out Mill Lane. A358/A303 - Think we should push for more mini roundabouts here. Most dangerous junction in Somerset. Getting onto or across main road at the junction when driving out of village Henlade Way and turning back into the village off that main road (is that the A358?) HVG - linked to building. MILL LANE Mill lane - cars drive too fast. Railway bridge pedestrian nightmare? Mill Lane / St Michael Road. Mill lane and St Michael Road. Safety - pavements over canal and river bridge too narrow and road not wide enough for two HGV's. Mill lane. Junction out of Mill Lane! DILLONS RD Dillons Road (2) Dillons Road/St. Michael Road junction. Junction visibility - from Dillons Road onto St Michaels Road HAM LANE Ham Lane/Creech Road. Hype Lane should have been widened to cope with traffic. Ham Road badly affected by Wessex water traffic and heavy lorries. Ham Road with St Michael's Rd. Coming from Ham@ the junction with Sawtter House. ARUNDELLS WAY

First corner in Arundells Way due to parked cars & a tall hedge. Blind corner Arundells Way very dangerous. Same car continuously parking on blind bend, very dangerous! Junction visibility in and out of Arundells Way and dangerous parking on corners of roads on the Arundell estate. Hyde Lane is also now very dangerous to drive down as the road near the park is too narrow with parked cars and the new building is causing flooding. ST MICHAEL’S RD Junctions along St Michaels Road. (2) Between canal bridge and railway bridge, laburnum terrace. St Michael's Road/Dillons Road/North End + parking outside the village shop. NORTH END North End roundabout. Visibility: emerging from service road at North End. Pulling on to the roundabout next to Nigel Ford funeral directors. With the amount of traffic using the village the North End junction is now very busy and needs additional measures. CHEATS LANE Junction visibility - turning into Cheats Lane coming from C.S.M Turning right into Cheats Lane coming from CSM. Cheats Rd corner, turning right for Ruishton from CSM. Very poor sight line when verge grass grows too high. OTHER LOCATIONS IN & AROUND CSM VILLAGE Too much traffic/traffic in general uses West View as a cut through to avoid the "bumps" on St. Michaels Road. Top of Bull Street and Vicarage Lane - cars parking for church makes visibility and access difficult. Lots of near misses. Visibility: Turning right by the vets (cars obstructing view). Limited visibility when leaving doctors surgery. People tend to pull out without looking to the right. Visibility around shop due to parking. Visibility: Turning right out of Ryesland Way can't see what is approaching due to bend and they can't see you until the last minute. Increase of traffic volume has made this a greater problem. Poor visibility from our drive onto road from Worthy Lane to mini roundabout mainly because of speed and volume on this stretch. Busy crosslane off pub.

Bus service Lack of public transport. (2) A decent bus service is desperately needed not the arrangement as at present. We need a more regular service not a nearly 4 hourly one as now. We need regular to Taunton as they have at Monkton Heathfield (every 15 mins) Inability to get out in evening by public transport - taxi (cheapest) £15 each way. Noise of rat-run traffic. Lack of an evening bus service (particularly wed-sat evenings). Lack of bus services. Hyde Lane into main road by vets. Poor bus service. It was lack of a regular bus service. It remains to be seen if the proposed new hourly service is sustainable.

HGVs/Tractors Excessive number of very large lorries and very large tractors passing through narrow roads through village. Amount of HGV on small, rural roads.

We are particularly affected by sewage trucks travelling on narrow lanes to the sewage works at Ham. We were promised these would use a relief road which has still not materialised. 2. Flooding of Ham Road & Lane End HVG - Ruin roads and bridges. HVG probably only problem during development work. HVG Traffic by primary school. Increased traffic gong up/down North End with no pavements and brambles & stinging nettles protruding into the road - not safe when walking 4 kids to school.

Pedestrians and cyclists We really need a proper school crossing or a lollypop lady. Pavements over railway not wide enough, traffic increased and driving too fast. The virtual footpath in North End is incredibly dangerous. Safety of children walking to Heathfield school along Hyde Lane. Poor bus service. School children having to cross road outside of primary school without barriers to road or a pedestrian crossing. Lack of pavement on Creech Heathfield main road even though it has a 40mph speed limit. Lack of parking for primary school. Junction visibility - Hopkins field onto Hyde Lane! Lack of safe cycle paths (namely Hyde Lane + pedestrian path).

Road improvements/maintenance M5 junction/A358 Ruishton side. Dualling - A358/A303 needed! Road improvements badly needed especially upgrade of A358/A303/Henlade. Pits in the road. Reduce traffic lights where possible for roundabouts. The roads to access Creech are poor, Ham Floods, North End is narrow and Hyde Lane is poor quality with few passing places and no pedestrian path.

Noise/pollution Increase in noise & air pollution caused by increasing volume of traffic travelling over speed humps outside our property. Increasing noise over "calming" bumps (i.e. sleeping policemen) apparently these are no longer installed!? Motorway noise and dust junction visibility at Charlton Rd. Noise from motorway, Hyde Lane by Hyde cottages.

Generally Improvements are required to connectivity in the village. Dear Chairman, My apologies for missing the closing date for your Survey of Creech St. Michael, but there are some days when typing is difficult, and yesterday happened to be one of them.. But, quite apart from that, I found your survey interesting for several reasons. Reasons that are rather intangible, but none the less very real to me and I suspect, to the community at large. I am left wondering why, for instance, all reference to the Railway has been carefully air brushed out of the Promap that accompanied your survey document? Surely the Railway is as relevant to this debate, as the M5 motorway? There has been mention made recently that British Rail might consider upgrading the station at Langport for instance, and were that to happen it might have a dramatic effect on commuter traffic on the M5 between Bridgwater (say) and Wellington, I can’t believe such an omission was accidental – which leaves me wondering why?. Just for your record, my wife and I have lived here for the past 25 wonderful years. Social housing looking after their properties and not driving like idiots.

School road traffic - single minded driving. Too much connected with new developments. Junction with Hyde lane/St Michael’s Road, by vets mainly due to cars parked there. Build no more houses. Bridgwater to Taunton traffic from Creech Heathfield and schools.

Q5 – SOLUTIONS TO TRAFFIC PROBLEMS & SUGGESTED LOCATIONS

20 mph limit – Some respondents selected multiple choices, however all selections included 20mph limit The main rd through the village people speed. [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] 20 mph throughout the village. (3) 20mph limit throughout CSM village. Physical traffic calming between Rysland way and the Bell Inn car park. 20mph - 1. All over the village. 2. at small roundabout junction near undertakers. [traffic lights] 20 mph throughout village, traffic calming to protect cyclists over bridges, canal and railway. 20mph through village. Calming measures by school, north End and West View. BUT NOT SPEED BUMPS! 20mph through CSM and traffic calming / speed bumps. 20mph - Main road from north to south through the village. Speed bumps need to be removed in order to reduce noise pollution, & replaced with more environmentally friendly traffic calming measures e.g. traffic priority stretches such as that on River Tone bridge. North End road + St Michael road (through village). [20 mph. Widen pavements. Physical traffic calming.] Suggestions for road through CSM. [20 mph. Widen pavements. Physical traffic calming.] From Mill Lane up to the pub. The village has turned into a racing track rather than the calm peaceful community we thought it was. Traffic speed is a real problem. I counted 4 seeding tractors going through the village last week. Each one the man drive was also on his phone! 2 of them were pulling large machinery. The village is too fast. Too dangerous when walking through it with babies and children. A change really does need to happen before something serious happens. Money should be spent making our village safe not wasting it on recreational needs that are not necessary right now. Also the plants growing on the bridges need to be kept under control they obstruct visibility. [20 mph. Widen pavements. Physical traffic calming.] Mill lane /Laburnum terrace end please. [20 mph. Physical traffic calming. Traffic lights] By Mill Lane and Laburnum Terrace/ Curvalion Road. Outside school and Hyde Lane. [20 mph. Widen pavements. Physical traffic calming. Traffic lights] 20mph limit through the main village i.e. from Mill Lane rail bridge to exit north of village. 20mph + traffic calming in vicinity of railway, river and canal bridges. 20mph - To River Bridge. 20 mph from junction of Hyde Lane to old river tone bridge. 20mph - From present limit to tone river bridge. 20mph limit through virtual footpath at North End needs re-enforcement. Along N.End. Along St Michael over railway/canal. [20 mph. Widen pavements. Physical traffic calming.] 20mph limit from River Tone bridge to North End. 20mph speed limit from bridge over R.Tone - all the way through the village. Speed Start 20mph and calming measures by Baptist church. Alternatively from canal bridge all through the village. 20mph - Creech Baptist to n.end. Physical traffic calming - t.c.m's St Michaels close to Baptist church 20mph - Speed limit from roundabout at n.end right through to junction within Ruishton. 20mph limit already present at North End area of village should be extended to include St Michael's Road (main road) down to beyond railway bridge, with associated traffic calming as necessary. Footbridge over railway thought