Summary of Representations to Examiner Creech St Michael
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Development Plan Summary of representations submitted to independent examiner Summary Submission (Regulation 16) consultation was carried out between 10 May – 22 June 2018. Regulation 16 stage attracted 17 representations from different people or organisations. A second period of public consultation was held between 28 February – 11 April 2019 specifically on the Habitats Regulations Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment. This resulted in six representations. All representations were submitted, in their entirety to the independent examiner. Regulation 16: Person/Organisation Comment Highways England Have no comments to make further to those we made previously. Y Verley Due to narrow roads and weigh of existing traffic no more houses in the parish or close surroundings other than development of vacant houses and large plot in St Nicholas Road and Hyde Lane. 5 houses too many? That will mean at least 7 or 8 cars. K Tutill The proposed allocation of land to the south of Langaller Road was precipitated by a residential planning application by Gladman. However land north of Langaller Road and the subsequent addition of land around Creech Heathfield were not part of any questionnaire and have been included without any apparent consultation. It would seem that the allocation of such a large area of land as Green Wedge is purely to prevent development. The M5 is a natural barrier and can be achieved by planting along its length. Development in the future os this area Is much more sustainable that the potential of “throwing” it out beyond the existing boundaries to the east. Remove the area north of Langaller Road and around Creech Heathfield from the Green Wedge designation. 1 S Harris In the green wedge proposal, why is the eastern boundary in the northern area not following the road? It looks as though it runs along the road way until it reaches 1 and 2 Heathfield Farmhouse then stops. This could allow development which would be detrimental to 1 and 2 Heathfield Farmhouse but almost sever the green lung between the new Monkton Development and Creech Heathfield. Creech Heathfield has been plagued by noise and pollution from the M5 motorway for years. With the proposal for the new urban extension surely priority should be now given to adequate screening of the motorway on both sides. Ecology of area 1, no mention of the wild deer of which at least 4 call this area their home. If underpass is pedestrianized then the deer will have no safe way of crossing the motorway. How do you propose to protect the deer? The urban extension is a major development; the Neighbourhood plan should be addressing the issues before they become a major issue. West Monkton Parish 3.4.2 SADMP-DPD: should it be SPD (Supplementary Council Planning Document)? 7.1.7 CSM NP Traffic Management Plan' ... to ensure that traffic impacts from new development are carefully assessed and managed to protect the character of the NOP area and achieve the NDP vision.' CSM NDP clearly states that the parish shares the planned development areas known as Monkton Heathfield 1 (MHl), and Monkton Heathfield 2 (MH2), with the Parish of West Monkton; Creech St Michael having 45% of the allocation and West Monkton having the rest. SUGGEST INSERT to para 7.1.7 'and achieve the NDP vision ... without negative impact on neighbouring parishes especially West Monkton Parish.' SUGGEST this is also inserted into Policy CSM2 para 2 The initiatives agreed within the Traffic Management Plan will be coordinated with those initiatives and measures proposed in connection with the Monkton Heathfield urban extension to ensure that strategic and local transport strategies are aligned ...' without negative impact on neighbouring parishes especially West Monkton Parish.' 2 7.2 CSM 4 Housing Second bullet point -'...be limited to two I two-and-a-half storeys': Taunton's Garden Town status (Para 4.2.5 see below) carries with it a required basic housing density, plus a commitment to 50% open space provision. To deliver the housing numbers in the Core Strategy will require houses to be built at more than 2.5 storeys if the 50% Open Space is to be delivered. Quote from Para 4.2.5 ' ...It is therefore strongly recommended that the Parish Council and other organisations base their formal consultation responses and other inputs related to the masterplanning, detailed design proposals and further planning applications for the West Monkton scheme on the objective ofsecuring the delivery of a development that accords with the Garden Town principles and priorities identified in the TDBC Expressions of Interest document. If this element of CSM 4 remains in situ, then taller buildings will have to be located in other areas of the MH2 development, artificially scewing the allocation of different heights and styles of buildings throughout the development. SUGGEST second bullet point is removed from CSM 4 Housing. 7.6.3 CSM Local Green Spaces Map 14 in Appendix E shows an area enclosed by a dotted line described as 'Fields between West Monkton and Creech St Michael village'. The area encloses two fields to the western side of the yellow dotted area which are in fact within the West Monkton Parish Boundary. The boundary is also the boundary of the WM & CF NP area, (the NP is made). SUGGEST If the boundary between the two parishes was to be re-aligned to follow the motorway, then this would not be a problem. However, since the review of Parish Boundaries is unlikely to be before 2019, this error on the map needs to be addressed and the policy re-worded appropriately. V Knight Who, how and why garden/field at Husk Farm (3 acres) has been proposed as green belt (Plan 14) without consultation consent or engagement with owner? This is not a place or space used by the public. Suggest that land on the opposite side of the canal should be ring fenced for wildlife and public enjoyment for dog walking etc. As much of the land on the opposite side of the canal has been sold for development. 3 Object to the approach and lack of consultation. Would like to understand the consideration criteria and process. Suffering from the mass development of green land that has taken place in Creech: property regularly floods from overflow out of the manholes with the excess foul waste - endured for 3 years with no sign of remediation. At no point was impact of foul waste on small housing and landowners was considered prior to mass building of houses. Victim to corporate development pocket lining, whilst foul waste continues to pump out directly into the countryside for cattle and wildlife to feed on at Husk Farm. Please remove restrictions and boundaries from my property at Husk Farm until we have held open direct dialogue to discuss the above. Natural England CSM NDP appears well-researched and to be a generally positive document that reflects local aspirations for the area; particularly welcome consideration given to landscape character and the objective to protect our valued green spaces and landscapes, waterways and the natural environment generally. Suggest the NPD reference to Seeking measures to reduce noise and air pollution by supporting and acting on measures to improve the environment would be strengthened if consideration could also be given to reducing light pollution. Canal & River Trust Note that comments submitted as part of the Housing Needs Survey and Green Wedge consultation have been taken into account in final document and pleased many of our recommendations have been included. Welcome opportunity to comment to ensure the Canal is properly protected and promoted and the multi-functional benefits that the waterway can bring to the area Is properly recognised. 'What your local waterway can do for your community-a planning guide for waterways in Neighbourhood Plans' sets out issues and opportunities to consider when preparing a NDP 4 and considers the contribution the canal brings to life in a local community.The Bridgwater & Taunton Canal runs for 14 miles through 7 locks and note the community hold it in high regard and enjoy using it regularly. Note improvements such as a slipway and towpath would we welcomed by residents to maximise the wellbeing benefits and sustainable transport options that the canal brings to the area. We actively promote the towpath for use as a free to use well-being and recreation resource, both on and off the water, as well as active travel route into the heart of the town. Suggestions for a new bridge crossing and slipway should be discussed further with the Trust but could be of benefit in achieving greater access to the waterway and towpath for all. Our permission will be required to cross the canal, as well as possibly construct the bridge landings or links to it on Trust land. The bridge design will need to be agreed to ensure it has no impact on navigational safety, or safety of towpath users, and its long-term ownership and maintenance must be considered too. Suggested policy CSM1 be amended to specifically mention access to and along the canal towpath and to separate out mention of access from the Larkfleet Estate and access in general along and to the canal towpath. A separate bullet point would better reflect the importance of the canal towpath a cycling and pedestrian route. Historic England I can confirm that there are no comments which we wish to make. Z Nation 7.2.2 CSM3 policy suggests existing single and two person households occupying properties with 3+ bedrooms might wish to move to new 2 bed properties and bungalows. Bungalows do appeal too many however it is unlikely that many residents wish to move to new homes.