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 !rea, 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 http://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 ͉͌΄̟ͅ ͘ϭ͌̾͘ϭ̪͟ Ϸϑϟ̬̬̬̾ͩϭ͟ 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, ͌΄͛ ̔ϭ̬̟̩Ϟ͌΄̩͛͌͌ϩ ̦̾ϑͅ ΐ̬̾̾ ̬ͩ͟ ϑ̟̬̾͌͟ͅϩϭ ̳ϑ΄ͩ͌ͅͅ Dϭϑͅϭ ͌͛͌΄̟̩ ͌΄ͅϟ̬̪̾͟ ̍͌ϟϑ̾ ̦̾ϑͅ ϑͅϩ ̬ͅϷ̾΄ϭͅϟϭ ̾͘ϑ̬̟ͅͅͅ 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, Ζ͌΄̟ͅ ͘ϭ͌̾͘ϭ̪͟ ͅϭϭϩ͟ 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, ϑͅϩ ̬ͅ ̭̪͟ ϭΕ͘ϭ̬͛ϭͅϟϭ ̬͟ 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 ϑ̾͌͟ ̩̬̟̩̾Ζ Ώϑ̾΄ϭ ̩ͩϭ ̦ϑ̬̩̪͛͟͟ ϟ͌̈́̈́΄̬ͩͅΖ Ϸϑϟ̬̬̬̾ͩϭ͟ - 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 ϑͅϩ ̬̻̾͟ͅ ̩ͩϭ̈́ ͩ͌ ̳̩΄͛̾͌Ε̪ͩ͌͟ͅ 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 ϑ̾͌͟ ̬̾ͩ͟ϭϩ ΄ͅϩϭ͛ ̩ͩϭ ̩͉͌΄̟ͅ ̦ϭ͌̾͘ϭ̪ ͟ϭϟ̬͎ͩ͌ͅ. 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 ̬ͅ ̩ͩϭ Ϟ΄̬̾ϩ̬̟̪͟ͅ ̩͘Ζ̬͟ϟϑ̾ ϑ͘͘ϭϑ͛ϑͅϟϭ̤ Ϟ΄ͩ ̬ͅ ̩ͩϭ ͘΄Ϟ̪͟ ̈́ϑͅϑ̟ϭ̈́ϭͩͅ ϑͅϩ ΐ̬ϩϭ̬̟ͅͅ ̩ͩϭ ͘΄Ϟ̪͟ 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-ͩ͟Ζ̾ϭ ϭΏϭ̤ͩ͟ͅ ͅϭΐϟ͌̈́ϭ̪͛͟ ̚͘ϭͅ DϑΖ̤ ͌͛ͩ͘͟͟ ϭΏϭ̤ͩ͟ͅ 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.

 ̳̩ϭ ͌Ώϭ͛ΐ̩ϭ̬̟̾̈́ͅ ̈́ϑ̸̬͌͛ͩΖ ϑ̟͛ϭϭ ΐ̬̩ͩ ̩ͩϭ ̦ϑ̬̩͛͟ ͌΄ͅϟ̬̪̾͟ ͛͌͌͘͘͟ϑ̾ ͩ͌ 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 Parish̪͟ 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 prev̬͌΄͟ ͚΄ϭ̬̪ͩ͌͟͟ͅ ϟ͌̈́̈́ϭ̧ͩ͟ͅ ̦΄Ϟ̬̾ϟ ̬ͩ͌̾ϭͩ͟ ϑͅϩ ͌̾ϩϭ͛ ͘ϭ͌̾͘ϭ̪͟ ̩͌΄̬̟͟ͅ ΐϭ͛ϭ ϑ̾͌͟ ͛ϑ̬͟ϭϩ̧ ̭ϭϭ !͘͘ϭͅϩ̬Ε Ϯ Ϸ͌͛ ϟ͌̈́̈́ϭ̧ͩ͟ͅ

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 ϟ͌ͅϟϭ͛͟ͅ ϑϞ͌΄ͩ ϻΖϩϭ ̍ϑͅϭ ϑͅϩ ̸΄ͅϟ̬ͩ͌͟ͅ ͘ϑ̬͛ͩϟ΄̾ϑ͛̾Ζ ͌ͩ͌ͅ ̭ͩ ̬̓ϟ̩ϑϭ̪̾͟ ̩͌ϑϩ ̓ 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 ϑͅϩ ͘͟ϭϭϩ̬̟ͅ ̬͟͟΄ϭ͟ ϭ̈́ϭ̟͛ϭϩ ͘ϑ̬͛ͩϟ΄̾ϑ͛̾Ζ ̩ͩ͛͌΄̟̩ ̩ͩϭ ͅϭΐ ϩϭΏϭ̾͌̈́͘ϭ̪ͩ͟ͅ 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 ̓ ͌ͅϭ ͛ϭ͌͘͟ͅϩϭͩͅ ͛ϭ͌͛ͩ͘ϭϩ ̩ϑΏ̬̟ͅ Ϟϭϭͅ ̩̬ͩ ϞΖ ϑ ϟϑ̪͛͟ ΐ̬̟ͅ ̬̈́͛͛͌͛ ΐ̩̬̾ϭ 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 ΐ̩͌ Ϸϭϭ̾ ΄ͅϑϞ̾ϭ ͩ͌ ϟ͌̈́̈́ϭͩͅ ͌ͅ ΐ̩ϭ̩ͩϭ͛ ̩ͩϭ͟ϭ ̩͌͟΄̾ϩ Ϟϭ ϟ̬͌͟ͅϩϭ͛ϭϩ ͍̩D̪͌ͩͅ ̻͌ͅΐ̪͎̦͟

‒ 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 households̓ 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 households̓ 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 ̬ͅ ͛ϭ͌͘͟ͅϩϭ̪ͩ͟ͅ ϟ͌̈́̈́ϭͩ͟ͅ ̩ͩ͛͌΄̟̩͌΄ͩ !͘͘ϭͅϩ̬Ε Ϯ̧

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 ͛ϭϑϷϷ̬͛̈́ϭϩ ̾ϑͩϭ͛ ̬ͅ ̩ͩϭ ͟΄͛ΏϭΖ ΐ̩ϭ͛ϭ ̭ͩ ̬̓ϟ̩ϑϭ̪̾͟ 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 ϭΕ͘ϑ̬̻̬͌̈́͛͌͘͟ͅͅΏϭ̈́ϭͩͅ ͌Ϸ ̩ͩϭ ͟ϟ̩̪͌͌̾͟ Ϸϑϟ̬̬̬̾ͩϭ̤͟ 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 ΐ̬ϩϭ͛ ΄͟ϭ ͌Ϸ ̩ͩϭ ͟ϟ̩̪͌͌̾͟ ͛ϭ͌͟΄͛ϟϭ͟ Ϸ͌͛ ̩ͩe 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) ‒ !ffordable 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 ϑ̟͛ϭϭ ΐ̬̩ͩ ̩ͩϭ ̦ϑ̬̩͛͟ ͌΄ͅϟ̬̪̾͟ ͛͌͌͘͘͟ϑ̾ ͩ͌ 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 ‘!dditional 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! D͛ϭϑϩϷ΄̾ ͘΄Ϟ ͍̳̩ϭ ϭ̧͎̾̾ ̳̩ϑ̪ͩ͟ ΐ̩Ζ ΐϭ ϩ͌ͥͩͅ ΄͟ϭ 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 Ͼ̪ͩ͟ ̬̈́͌͛ͩ͘ϑͩͅ Ϸ͌͛ ̭̓ ͩ͌ ̩ϑΏϭ ϑ Ώ̬̾̾ϑ̟ϭ 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 - !͛΄ͅϩϭ̪̾͟ ̓ϑΖ̧ 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). Ͼ̪ͩ͟ Ϟϭϭͅ ̬͌̾͘͟ϭϩ ϑ̾͛ϭϑϩΖ̧ 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- ΐ̩̬̾ͩ͟ ̬̬̬̟̾̈́ͩͅ ͘͟ϭϭϩ ̩ͩϭΖ ϑ͛ϭ ͌ͩͅ ̟͌͌ϩ Ϸ͌͛ ͌΄͛ ϟϑ͛ ͟΄͘͟ϭ̬͌͟ͅͅ ϑͅϩ ϩ̪͌ͩͅ Ϸϭϭ̾ ̩ͩϭΖ ϑ͛ϭ ̈́΄ϟ̩ ϩϭͩϭ͛͛ϭͩͅ 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 ͩ͌ ϩ͌ϟ̪ͩ͌͛͟ ͟΄̟͛ϭ͛Ζ̧ 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 ̬ͩ͌ͅ ̭ͩ ̬̓ϟ̩ϑϭ̪̾͟ ̩͌ϑϩ ϞΖ ̩ͩϭ Ώϭͩ͟ ϑͅϩ ̩ͩϭ ͛͌ϑϩ ͅϑ͛͛͌ΐ̬̟ͅ ͟ϭϟ̬ͩ͌ͅ ϞϭϷ͌͛ϭ ̩ͩϭ ͘͟ϭϭϩ Ϟ΄̈́͘͟ - 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 ̩ϑΏϭ ϩ̬͟ϑϞ̬̬̾ͩΖ Ϟ΄̟̟̬ϭ͟ ͩ͛ϑΏϭ̾ ͌ͅ ̩ͩϭ ͛͌ϑϩ ͩ͌ ϑΏ̬͌ϩ ̩ͩϭ ̩͌ͩ͌̾͘ϭ͟ ̬ͅ ̩ͩϭ̧̈́ ̔͌ ͘ϭϩϭ̬ͩ͛͟ϑͅ ϟ̬̟͛͌͟͟ͅ ͌ͅ ̭ͩ ̬̓ϟ̩ϑϭ̪̾͟ 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 ͌̾ͅΖ ̸΄ͩ͟ Ϸ̬ͩ ͌ͅ ̩ͩϭ Ϸ͌͌ͩ͘ϑ̩ͩ͟ ͌ͅ ̩ͩϭ Ϟ̬͛ϩ̟ϭ͟ ΐ̬̩ͩ ̩ͩϭ ͛͘ϑ̧̈́ ̳̩ϭ ͘ϑ̩ͩ͟ ϑ͛ϭ ͌͟ ͅϑ͛͛͌ΐ ϑͅϩ ̩ͩϭ ͩ͛ϑϷϷ̬ϟ ̬͟ ͌͟ Ϸϑͩ͟ ̬̪ͩ͟ 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 MICH!EL’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 ϟ͌̈́̈́΄ͩϭ͛ ͩ͛ϑϷϷ̬ϟ ͌ͅ ̩ͩϭ ̓ϱ Ϟϭͩΐϭϭͅ ̬͛ϩ̟ΐϑͩϭ͛ ͍͟ϑΖ͎ ϑͅϩ ̓ϭ̬̟̤̾̾ͩ͌ͅͅ Ͼ ϟϑ̪ͩͅ Ϟϭ̬̾ϭΏϭ ͟uch 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. ̳͌͌ ̈́΄ϟ̩ ϟ͌ͅͅϭϟͩϭϩ ΐ̬̩ͩ ͅϭΐ ϩϭΏϭ̾͌̈́͘ϭ̧ͩ͟ͅ ̉΄ͅϟ̬ͩ͌ͅ ΐ̬̩ͩ ϻΖϩϭ ̾ϑͅϭ̻̭ͩ ̬̓ϟ̩ϑϭ̪̾͟ ̩͌ϑϩ̤ ϞΖ Ώϭͩ͟ ̈́ϑ̬̾ͅΖ ϩ΄ϭ ͩ͌ ϟϑ͛͟ 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

to be important for pedestrian safety but removal of footway from existing bridge is likely to further increase traffic speeds over railway road bridge. From the shop down to the river bridge, the traffic calming is good from North end to the shop then they zoom on. This won't stop the volume - ̬̪ͩ͟ ϑ ͛ϑͩ ͛΄ͅ ̤ ̬̈́͌ͩ͌͛ͩ͟͟ ϑ̾͛ϭϑϩΖ ΄͟ϭ ͩ͌ ϞΖ͘ϑ͟͟ ͛ϭϭϟ̩ ϑͩ̾͟ϭ ̬̟̩̾ͩ͟ ϑͅϩ ̈́͌ͩ͌͛ΐϑΖ ̸Ϯϱ roundabout to A38 to A358 and vice versa. More houses, more problems! [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] Main street in CSM. [20 mph. Widen pavements.] St Michaels Road, Hyde Lane, Brittons Ash. [20 mph. Widen pavements.] 20 mph limit on Hyde Lane, St Michael's Road & North End. Object to any new planning applications for houses. 20mph limit where kids walk to school down Hyde Lane. 20mph - Hyde lane. (2) Hyde lane from Creech to rugby club. [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] Hyde lane is a race track. [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] Hyde lane over the bridge and along Hyde lane. [20 mph. Widen pavements.] Coming out of Hyde lane to go over A358 to Stoke Road you take your life in your hands! [20 mph. Widen pavements. Physical traffic calming.] 20mph - One way through Hyde Lane. One way system as people drive so fast! 20mph St Michael Road, Hyde lane corners (only), by medical centre. Hyde Lane is very very dangerous at school opening and closing times. Immediate action necessary. [20 mph. Widen pavements. Physical traffic calming.] 20mph - On Hyde Lane by school and by park should be 20mph limit. By the school. [20 mph. Widen pavements. Physical traffic calming.] 20mph - By school, pub, shop to replace speed bumps. 20mph outside school, speed bumps or other traffic calming outside shop, extend pavements on Hyde lane. Weight/size restriction in Hyde lane. West View and the main road between the shop and the railway bridge. [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] Village act but through West view! Not bumps, but something needed in West View which issued to avoid bumps! [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] 20mph - Bull Street. Badly require a 20mph speed limit particularly for Bull St, CSM. very busy and single sections of one car access. 20mph - Along Creech Heathfield main road (40mph does not mean 40mph at the moment). Creech Heathfield Rd., to Creech St Michael roundabout. [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] Creech Heathfield. [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] Most traffic speeds through Creech Heathfield. [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] Charlton Rd, Creech Heathfield. It is shocking the speed of cars and tractors that pass our property. [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] North End to Creech Heathfield. [20 mph. Widen pavements.] 20mph in Ham. There are no pavements. Traffic speed is high at commuting hours. 20mph from motorway bridge through new estate, past school and down through village to river bridge. Just past motorway bridge as cars speed up here. [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] 20mph - Between CSM, Ruishton and A358 road. White Street speeding of tractors and cars an issue. [20 mph. Physical traffic calming.] 20mph - no thanks.

Physical traffic calming

Divert onto artery roads like at new development at Monkton Heathfield. Road from Walford Cross down past Creech Heathfield with speed of traffic down speeding drivers. Road from Walford Cross to Creech Heathfield (via roundabout) needs traffic calming. Set up a community speed watch group (see Avon and Somerset Police website). Sleeping policeman calming humps from Bell Inn down to river bridge. But not before Hyde Lane is widened from motorway bridge & footpath/cyclepath is built for school children going to Heathfield school. Sleeping policeman sadly seem the best way to slow traffic. Speed bumps continued through the village - traffic speeds up from the river to the shop so we need to put controls in place. Accidents are about to happen. Speed bumps on road out to Creech Heathfield and BEFORE the mini roundabout at North End coming down from M5 bridge. Speed bumps throughout village. Speed bumps/traffic calming extended up Hyde lane from the school to the park. Speed cameras on Main Rd. From North End roundabout to motorway bridge. From the motorway bridge until the mini roundabout at North End. ϵ͛͌̈́ ̭ͩ ̬̓ϟ̩ϑϭ̪̾͟ ϟ̩΄͛ϟ̩ ͩ͌ ̧̩͌͘͟ All through village. Calming from Bell Inn to Baptist church. Carry on the speed bumps through past the docto̪͛͟ ͟΄̟͛ϭ͛Ζ ΄͘ ͩ͌ ̩ͩϭ ͘ϑ̧̻͛ Double yellow lines along Hyde lane & speed bumps. Implement double yellow lines in front of the bell. Leave speed bumps but remove the N bound carriageway obstruction close N of Hyde Lane entrance. Make the village impossible to travel all the way through if a vehicle is over width. If you widen pavements over all bridges and short one way/priority systems this will slow traffic and give pedestrians more space. Not speed humps N.end, CSM. Remove restriction at St Michaels Road. Remove the chicane outside to ease traffic flow. Restrict parking in Hyde Lane. Road narrowing down through Creech Heathfield. No more speed bumps. Hyde Lane from motorway bridge "humps" or rumble bars. N.End going west from mini roundabout. Yellow lines and or parking enforcement. Traffic calming - Arundells way. Arundells way to reduce speeding. Traffic calming between premier shop and river bridge and Creech Heathfield rd from mini roundabout. Traffic Calming- National to 30mph section heading to Mini-roundabout at North End. Creech Heathfield. Bus Services- Throughout village. Remove bus only lanes and roads. Physical calming measures seem to be only effective way. Physical traffic calming measures - beyond slaughter house and through village, Hyde lane. Mill lane and improved junction.

Priority system for North end. 20mph limit not enforced, danger emerging from properties without pavements. Due to traffic speed at north end + noise from HGV. Traffic issues in centre are aggravated by rat run from A358 to A361 and should have been dealt with at time of marketing Heathfield development planning. One assumes that CSMPC does not mind this but matters will worsen and need to be addressed now by development contributors. Village shop to river bridge.

Widening pavements A complete footpath between Sweeting Close and Hyde Lane cottages for Heathfield school children. Pavement from Sweeting Close to path past Hyde Lane cottages leading to new A38. Pavement Hyde lane towards school. Hyde Lane needs a pavement for the schoolkids. Need a footpath all the way from M5 bridge to Hyde Lane cottages. Adsborough A38 main road bus stops. As there is no pavement between Walford Cross and Adsborough - this would be helpful for cyclist and walkers. Creech Heathfield - not many pavements. Creech Heathfield TA3 has no pavement. Speeding cars 60/80 & in a 40 limit. To install pavements in Creech Heathfield, so people do not have to walk in the road to go to the village when most vehicles are speeding. A footpath / pavement/ cycle path from North end to Creech Heathfield. Widening: From north end roundabout into village and from same towards C. Heathfield. Pavements north end/ worthy lane. 1) Area by village store is dangerous - car park at pub should be encouraged. 2) Prohibit site traffic from driving up Hyde Lane (past park). Main road through Creech has very narrow pavements - especially bridges. Pavements - in CSM. 20mph- West view. As long as it is not stepped. Ramp necessity for disabled and pushchair users. Slanted pavements opposite pub cause slipping into road.

Traffic lights Ͼͅ ̭ͩ ̬̓ϟ̩ϑϭ̪̾͟ ͛͌ϑϩ ΐ̩ϭ͛ϭ ̩ͩϭ ͛ϑ̬̾ΐϑΖ ̬̾ͅϭ Ϟ̬͛ϩ̟ϭ ̬͟ Ϟϭ ϑ ̟͌͌ϩ ̬ϩϭϑ ͩ͌ ̩ϑΏϭ ͩ͛ϑϷϷ̬ϟ ̧̬̟̩̾ͩ͟ Lights over railway bridge and between pub and North End. By the railway bridge - Mill Lane, bull street areas. Hyde lane Junction. Junction of Mill Lane. Outside primary school and village shop. Footpath made along Hyde lane please.

More frequent bus services Bus - very important. A regular circular bus route through CSM, Creech Heathfield and Ruishton - to/from Taunton. Bus route from Bridgwater through Creech and Ruishton, Taunton centre on to hospital. Bus services Creech Heathfield. More frequent through C.Heathfield, to Bridgwater and Taunton. Bus services to college! Main road in Creech Heathfield - pinch points as opposed to speed bumps.

Bus stop near Recreational field. Could do with shuttle buses. Lots of older people who rely on buses which we don't have only 1 every 3 hours is not enough. More bus routes and bust stops. HGV ban through village centre. More Buses!!! Put on the buses regularly as before in the village of CSM. At the first reading of this form the buses were running every 3 hrs - from 31.10.16 they will hopefully be hourly. CSM hourly bus service to and from town. Really miss the hourly bus service which forces me to use the car. My family would love to use the bus more however there needs to be more frequent service that also runs slightly later. Cheaper and more frequent bus service A361/A38 Walford Cross. Bus service is terrible and it does not always turn up.! Current bus service - last 2yrs has been unreliable so I never even consider it now.

Footbridge over railway Railway bridge, have had arm struck by passing car wing mirror!! Footbridge over canal by railway bridge. Railway road bridge-give way to oncoming vehicles like river bridge. Foot bridge over rivers and canal so children (parents) don't need to walk on the road. Footbridge needs to be over canal as well as railway. Footbridge - Beside main rd bridge over railway to provide a safer pathway for pedestrians and enable road to be widened for traffic! A footbridge should be established over the canal to gain better access on to it at Creech.

Pedestrian crossing I walk 2 small children up to the pre-school 3 times a week from Powell Close. Trying to cross the road is scary and dangerous. (The only place we can do so is opposite the pub as the pavement further up that side of the road is too narrow for a pushchair.) Traffic from the left comes round the bend in the road too quickly and cannot be seen until the last minute. Although it won't reduce the traffic I feel strongly there should be some sort of pedestrian crossing across the road. Implement a new pedestrian crossing in Hyde Lane near school. TDBC/SCC should provide the full safe route to school promised along Hyde Lane. We need a crossing by the shop/ vets. It is a nightmare trying to cross especially for children. Zebra crossing/lolly pop lady/man at crossing at school. Zebra crossing/traffic lights at bottom of north end (zebra crossing) and traffic lights at end of Langaller by new roundabout. There should be a safe lit walk/cycle route from CSM to Heathfield School both Hyde Lane and Langaller both have dangers to kids due to increased traffic, due to all new housing.

Generally Widen Hyde lane rd. to cope with traffic volume. Widening of Hyde Lane or possible new road connecting to Monkton Heathfield. Hyde lane (include a cycle lane too). Whatever it takes to stop village road being a short cut/ rat run between A358 and A38! Safer bus stop on A38 opposite maypole inn (Taunton bound).

Taunton by-pass which isn't through Creech St. Michael. View of the Creech bridge than should be a more weight limit for vehicles (for access). Cut back vegetation (often) to improve visibility at junction. Footpaths between CSM and Creech Heathfield. Get rid of the abattoir in village. Make it more rural. Visible police presence. Don't retain the new diversion of the A38 from Bathpool. Building the promised road for Wessex water use. Roundabout at M5 junction and A358 need reviewing. Reduce need to use car - better public transport needed + facilities in walking distance. We feel really cut off from the new estate at Bathpool -the sign on the road for Creech should be before the one for Bridgwater. Finish building houses. Stop building anymore houses. (2) Stop building houses!! The lanes were not designed for the volume e.g. Ruishton by Premier Inn, Hyde Lane, lanes around Ham / Thornfalcon. Build less houses = less traffic. Don't build so many houses in areas where there is no work. Wider roads. A solution to stop the rat run from Monkton to Henlade. Overall thought should be given to road design, not sticking plaster solutions, mentioned above. Mostly waste of time drivers don't comply. Traffic serious problem where there are no footpaths i.e. Worthy Lane to mini roundabout and many others. Cut through from A358 to A38 and A361 causes considerable problems. ̔͌ ͌ͅϭ ͩϑ̻ϭ͟ ϑͅΖ ̬͌ͩͅϟϭ ͌Ϸ ̩ͩϭ Ϯλ̩̈́͘ ̬̬̾̈́ͩ ̬̪ͩs a waste of time. Bus - We are asked not to use cars but to use public transport, but this is not possible in Creech, although only 4 miles from Taunton. ̔͌ͅϭ ͌Ϸ ̩ͩϭ ϑϞ͌Ώϭ̤ ̬̪ͩ͟ ͌̾ͅΖ ϩϑ̟ͅϭ͛͌΄͟ ΐ̩ϭͅ Ϟϭ̬̟ͅ ΄͟ϭϩ ϑ͟ ϑ ͛ϑͩ ͛΄ͅ Ϸ͌͛ ͘ϭ͌̾͘ϭ ϑΏ̬͌ϩ̬̟ͅ ϻϭ̾ͅϑϩϭ̻̈́͌ͩ͌rway to and from work. Too late for rest, lack of roads, all new traffic on existing roads that no longer can cope with the volume. To improve the roads in Creech, the roads around Creech should be more free-flowing so the village isn't used for a cut through. I don't think the traffic is too bad in CSM.

Q7 – VIRTUAL FOOTPATH LOCATIONS

HYDE LANE Hyde Lane (12) Top of Hyde Lane. Hyde Lane as cars are very fast . Hyde Lane for school children (2) Hyde Lane for school children. Hyde Lane needs the bends removed for safer visibility! Hyde Lane to Heathfield School. (2) Footpath all through Hyde Lane for children's safety walking to Heathfield from CSM. On Hyde Lane after motorway bridge. Hyde Lane across the M5 bridge towards Hyde Lane cottages.

On Hyde Lane over motorway bridge to end of road by Hyde Lane Cottages unless footpath cutting across field gets go ahead but currently unsafe due to speed limit and amount of traffic using road. Hyde Lane from motorway bridge to Hyde Lane cottages. Hyde Lane - from playing field to Hyde Lane cottages. Footpath from Recreation ground, through to hedge at Hyde Lane cottages, to join new roads (for Heathfield School). From Rugby ground to Hyde Lane cottages. Along Hyde land past the park towards the rugby club. (2) Hyde Lane from village to cottages where there is no current footpath. Hyde Lane to New Mill as it is a horrible pedestrian zone. Cycle lane: Hyde Lane - Priority - first thing to do soon!!!

NORTH END – CREECH HEATHFIELD North end to Creech Heathfield (12) North End to Creech Heathfield - dangerous road traffic speeds both ways along here and footpath is desperately needed. Would prefer real pavements but any pavement North End through to Creech Heathfield. Between CSM and Creech Heathfield if proper footpath not possible.

NORTH END – WORTHY LANE North End to Worthy Lane (12) Something needs to be done about the narrow road from mini roundabout at North End to Worthy Lane.

Other locations Langaller. Railway bridge. I have had cars mount the pavement on the rail bridge several times while walking across! i.e. narrow lanes for traffic over bridge. From Vicarage Lane to the canal side carpark. Vicarage Road, and Bull Street. Ham Road. Walford cross to Adsborough and Thurloxton. No mention of A38 Maypole problem?

Generally Creech Saint Michael has no bike or pedestrian i.e. pavement connections either to any of the hamlets in the Parish of Creech Saint Michael note to the new urban developments that has been built to the link into Taunton this does not aid the reduction in traffic use. Road crossing suggestion: They should be zebra crossings. Proper pathways are always preferable to virtual pathways Wherever there isn't a pavement - all around the village. The road is not wide enough - is it! Better maintenance of existing network please. What is a virtual footpath - for people who stay at home on their pc or laptop?

Not in support of virtual footpaths (15) No more virtual footpath is the one at North end is incredibly dangerous as cars drive on it all the time. One on North End is rubbish, I have been clipped by cars. Footpath on Hyde Lane from motorway bridge to turning into the old Brittons Ash/new footpath. This is dangerous due to volume of traffic and school children walking on the road. Virtual footpaths are dangerous. Virtual footpaths are exceptionally dangerous. No location are dangerous and give false sense of security. They are more dangerous - real pavements please! See map for bridge over motorway between Creech Heathfield and Langaller. Virtual footpaths even the Police cannot use them properly These do no slow traffic - drivers will not see them in the dark. Virtual footpath at North End was massive waste of money. Virtual footpaths are ignored, therefore a waste of money. Waste of time & money. Public do not appear to know how to use them safely, & many drivers are reluctant to slow down or give way for pedestrians & other road users. Can be dangerous! ϑ̪ͩͅ ͟ϭϭ ̩ͩϭ ͌ͅϭ ΐϭ ̩ϑΏϭ ̈́ϑ̻ϭ͟ ̈́΄ϟ̩ ϩ̬ϷϷϭ͛ϭͅϟϭ̤ ΐϑͩ͟ϭ ͌Ϸ ̬ͩ̈́ϭ̧ Not convinced they work. Not sure how effective these are??

Q8 – OTHER AREAS IN PARISH NEEDING BETTER LINKS

Child safety Hyde Lane is so dangerous without footpaths especially at night such a death trap!! Also needs more lighting teenagers in black walking down lane with black hoodies are a nightmare if close to the hedge. Once nearly knocked a boy down due to pulling into let a car pass luckily the boy turned towards me so I saw his white face, gave me quite a fright!! As so narrow along there. I would just like to reiterate the importance of a cycle/footpath along Hyde Lane to West Monkton Heathfield School. We use this road often and during term time there are large volumes of people walking to school (which is great), however I feel it is only a matter of time before there is an accident particularly in the winter months. Would be a real tragedy if it took something like this to make the council to take action. Was there no funding provided by the developers of the new housing to help with this/ Kids should be encouraged to walk to school but provide them with a safe route to do so in our opinion. Getting kids to school in West Monkton safely is very important as no transport is offered to children who live in Creech St Michael. Better walking/cycling routes. Making it safer and easier for children walking/cycling from Creech St Michael to Heathfield School - Hyde have in winter especially is very dangerous. Safer walking for pedestrians (children going to Heathfield, via Hyde Lane.) Also cycling route. Reduce speed from Hyde Lane to Rugby club to 20 mph. Cars speed by me, when I am cycling through Hyde Lane to the new road cycle path. There is no consideration for pedestrians and cyclists. Improve safety for school children along Hyde Lane and improve access for all traffic using Hyde Lane. Traffic lights on roundabout at Henlade cross road to make access to A358 safer. The road is too narrow on Hyde Lane. And no foot path. I feel that someone is likely to get run over at some point ϩ΄ϭ ͩ͌ ̩̬̟̩ ̩ϭϩ̟ϭ͟ ͌͟ Ζ͌΄ ϟϑ̪ͩͅ ͟ϭϭ ϑ͛͌΄ͅϩ ̩ͩϭ ϟ͌͛ͅϭ͛͟ Ώϭ͛Ζ ΐϭ̧̾̾

Footpaths

The most dangerous part of the village is Hyde Lane. Children walk to Heathfield along there and it is only a matter of time before someone is hurt. There needs to be a footpath! My main and only concern is Hyde Lane, lots of children walk to and from CSM/Heathfield. I would have a footpath all through Hyde Lane. A paved footpath is desperately needed on the west-side of the road between north end and worthy lane. (This was going to happen 30+ years ago!!! still waiting!!) It is very dangerous in present form. 1) Walford cross back towards Monkton Heathfield/Elm garden centre? Durston Elms to Creech Heathfield? 2) Increase number of dog friendly styles on existing network. 3) Wooden gates/styles in rural locations, not metal please. Creech Heathfield to North End footpath!!! This is becoming a dangerous road. Enhance footpath from North End through to CSM primary school and also to the playing field. North End towards Creech Heathfield. North End to doctors surgery/school. North End to Worthy Lane. Safe walking from playing field on Hyde Lane to Bathpool. Footpath North End towards Creech Heathfield. Enhance our existing footpaths - better signage and way markers. Village pavements very poor state, vegetation and broken up surfaces. Pavement out towards Langaller server over hanging bushes and weeds and rough walking surfaces hazardous to walkers. Walking access for scholars at Heathfield still nothing done after promises during last 4 years - the Parish has taking time on vanity projects and divisions. Even though there is a footpath from North End over m/way to Langaller and new estate, it is very overgrown in places and traffic and traffic travels so fast so is pretty scary sometimes. Also there is no cycle way on this route. This route is important for people who live this end of the village. Footpath/cycle route from park to canal path (avoiding road). Footpaths and cycle lanes all off Hyde Lane. Footpaths and cycle way from CSM and Ruishton all the way to Heathfield secondary school and both primary schools. Creech to Ruishton foot + cycle path. Land owners on footpath between canal and Ham make stiles impassable for dogs. The owner of the junk yard by the railway crossing told me he did not want dogs going through there. A large percentage of people using the footpaths have a dog. I have just had an £80 vet bill as my dog hurt his shoulder trying to get through closely spaced rails. Styles on footpath that are 'large dog' accessible - particularly the styles opposite Ham footbridge. Much more important to have a footpath than a cycle lane. Many people like to walk from CH to CSM - for access to village facilities and for exercise. Traffic goes quite fast on this straight road and a footpath is vital. Virtual footpath - North End > Creech Heathfield. Pavement - virtual or physical along the main road between Creech Heathfield and CSM. Wider footpaths over existing bridges.

Cycle Paths 1) A cycle path from North End roundabout to the new roundabout at Langaller, to link with cycle path there. 2) A cycle path from Recreation ground to rugby ground. Cycle track from Creech St. Michael to Ruishton. Cycling route into Taunton via Ruishton including J25. For safety of school children, there is an urgent need for a cycle path or pavement from the motorway bridge, Hyde Lane, to Heathfield school. We need to encourage children to be more active but need to provide a safe option for them to walk or cycle.

Make those cycle lanes listed (locations A and B) shared use (for pedestrians and cyclists). Likewise, make 'pedestrian bridge' listed (location C) shared use (for cyclists as well as pedestrians). The cycle path/ footpath at Langaller should be extended over motorway bridge into Creech. There is a cycle route over the M5 Creech Heathfield to Walford Cross but it is so overgrown and there are so many cars parked outside May Gurney it is unusable. We badly need a cycle lane over Adsborough Hill. Cycle lane: Hyde Lane.. (in Q7)- Where does it go past Hyde Lane cottages? Cycle path from CSM past Langallar to Monkton. This is vitally important in reducing traffic and encouraging decrease in car use. Cycle path from North End roundabout to A38 roundabout at Langaller. Cycle path on Langaller Rd into Creech as road fast in parts.

Traffic & Road Improvements Consider pedestrianising Hyde Lane. Access to A358 and through into Taunton through Ruishton would be much improved if it was one way out through Ruishton alongside the pub/church road and one way in from the A358 by the junction by the post office and takeaway leading to Stoke St Mary indicated on map. A358 congestion up to j25 needs serious attention. Any scheme which reduces the volume of 'rat-run' traffic along St Michael Rd would be greatly welcomed. As above, the stretch of road between North End roundabout and Worthy Lane is narrow and dangerous for those of us who would like to walk safely between these points. Better right turn from A358 when approaching Taunton. Creech Heathfield - speeding cars and children waiting for school bus or walking to school. Don't mix lorries/farm/cars/motor bikes etc. all increased since A38 closed using us as a fast cut through. Creech Heathfield to mini roundabout. Traffic is fast and the road is narrow moving dog walking or walking access and the village dangerous and inconvenient. Widening Ham Road on bend opposite Cypress Cottage. Take hedge away. Going out of CSM to the A358. Junction of Lipe Lane and A358 should be a roundabout. Raise the road from the river bridge to Hyde Lane to give better access in times of flood. The road layout should be planned as a whole. There are some simple reasons that would improve the road outside Hyde Lane cottages, and linking to relief road is a must! Definitely the link road between Hyde Lane and relief road. Traffic calming along Mill Lane. We need proper road access to canal car park with tarmac road surface. CSM is currently dangerous to walk or cycle round. Needs more speed humps reduced speed limits and more cycle and footpaths. 'Urgent' speed ramps at canal bridge. People in danger emerging from canal (act now please).

Public transport A transport service that is as regular and reliable as other parts of Taunton for elderly population due to the number of bungalows etc. in local area. An improved bus service. Bus link from CSM to Monkton Heathfield + Priorswood (into town) - would help take pressure off Hyde Lane and i am sure Heathfield children would use the service greatly and be safer for them and car users if less children on that stretch of the road.

Bus stop lay-by's needed each side of Maypole Inn A38. Put late night buses back. Creech village needs to think of how it was.... The elderly have been completely isolated. The new development has ruined the village: what was a village is more like a small town but with no facilities... At least put the bus route back on for them! Ham has no bus service. More bus routes. Public transport to Hankridge farm estate.

Pedestrian bridge Across the field from Ruishton to Hankridge Farm which was going to be years ago. [new pedestrian bridge] Additional pedestrian bridge over the canal by crafts meadow and lark fleet development. If such a bridge is to be built it must have an air draught of more than 6'12" to allow boats underneath. Creech to Ruishton so idea C is good. Creech to Ruishton. Pedestrian bridge over the canal would be a wonderful amenity + make it easier to use the canal towpath for exercise + recreation. Virtually all the Creech housing is north of the canal but we cannot access it without walking through all the village. I do not see the need for a pedestrian footbridge by railway bridge, as there is a pavement on one side of the road. The rail bridge for pedestrians is my main concern! A separate walk way is definitely needed at Creech Rail bridge! Pedestrian footbridge by railway bridge would be far too expensive for the Parish, however something is needed possibly single lane traffic? River, canal, railway, M5 - need more crossways over all. Need more junctions with M5 at A361, B3170 etc. use the railway!

Other Pedestrian crossing near Ham Rd junction and in Lipe lane. Traffic lights near the corner junction. The junction is Bull St, St Michaels Rd and Lipe lane. Footpath going down to mill lane on left side. Road crossing from the vets to post box at garage. More organised parking outside shop in CSM to prevent parking outside Bell and causing blockage of through traffic. Parking at the school. Parking outside village shop/ vets always leads to congestion. Pavement needed between Creech Heathfield + Worthy Lane area. At present pavement is not continuous. Putting more infrastructure in place i.e. pavements and traffic restrictions before anything else is under taken. Old Hyde Lane, who is responsible for cutting hedges and picking up litter - what a mess! Dog poo bins needed please! Before you consider any more footpaths the dog mess issue needs to be addressed. Lighting along the canal path. Consider putting lights on bridge at the bottom of Creech. This is most dangerous for families pushing a pram and the elderly with a wheelchair. [North End ̓ Worthy Lane] Why is this survey not being sent before all these houses were built. Not that it would have made any difference.

Q9– FACILITIES

Recreation field and play area (CSM village) and Taunton Model Engineers (TME)

There needs to be coordination between those providing recreational facilities i.e. village hall / Parish council / playing field / TDBC / school. Additional requirements for older children i.e. 12-18 years old. Need further recreation for teenagers - skate ramp? New pavilion needed and skateboarding park at rec. Skateboard/cycle ramps in park areas. Maybe a bike park-i.e. BMX course. Perhaps a cycle track at the recreation grounds for youngsters to race. Another multi use games area. Yes - outdoor gyms area a good way of keeping the whole community fit and are widely used when installed, Yes, the park maybe an outdoor park gym equipment. A running track and adult all weather outside gym at the park. Yes a sports facility engaging girls to play and keep fit like a Tennis court available to all to use. I'm happy to care take nets and bookings. More please - tennis courts. More room is necessary for more football pitches, cricket nets, basketball courts. Play equipment for toddlers which they can access/play on themselves in the recreation ground. The school, pre school and childcare facilities are vital for the village community, but we have had to tick the first box because of our age our household does not use them! ͉ϭ̤͟ ̩ͩϭ ϟ̩̬̾ϩ͛ϭ̪͟ͅ ̾͘ϑΖ̟͛͌΄ͅϩ Ϟϭ̩̬ͅϩ ̩ͩϭ Ώ̬̾̾ϑ̟ϭ ̩ϑ̧̾̾ The old small play park behind the Village Hall is a magnet for older children. The young, for whom it is intended can't play there as the facility is poor & the debris left over unsavoury. Improvements required to children's play area off Caray Grove (behind village hall), which is currently in disrepair, or incorporate it into Village Hall's outdoor provision. Post Office not listed above but should be retained as an essential village facility. Improvements to existing village school and pre-school are likely to be required to meet demands of additional population. Park off Caray Grove needs access from Village hall if use to be encouraged. Playground near village hall needs attention and access improved (who uses it?). Yes the play behind the village hall could be better used. Scrapping of playground behind Village Hall which is poorly sited, rarely used and attracts inappropriate use. Don't fill the playing field with play equipment, expand the TME track. Incorporate Caray Close play area into village hall grounds. Better signposting and equipment at play area behind Village Hall. Need to keep TME railway track on recreation field. Expand the playing fields into next field for play and picnic area and expand model railway. The railway is lovely and should be extended. Could we not have the field next to the playing field? TME track could be extended. More seating. Improved toilet/ changing facilities/ shelter. More seating and some shade areas in park in Creech. More shelter at the rec. More facilities at park and new pavilion. Lack of a sports hall. Yes, sports hall, changing facilities, with sufficient parking. Better toilets at the park Nicer toilets at the recreation field/play area.

Café facilities at the park. Allow dogs walkers access to recreation field. Dog path at recreation. The park is good but now not big enough and litter is a big problem there (not enough bins). More bins in the park to stop rubbish over flow. Parking - increased facilities for parking near the rec ground. Parking @ recreation field. Parking, toilets? The pavilion-Toilets!! Pavilion/toilets @ park. Refreshments available at Creech park during peak times. Toilets at the recreation ground, litter and dog waste bins, skate facilities at the recreation ground Recreation field is dismal, cold and noisy. Shelter from rain needed, plus a cafe, restaurant, swimming pool and a lot more parking. Better management of rec park! Try living near it and see/hear the problems there at night! It's a disgrace. New recreational facilities - In new development i.e. G. E. or F. The recreational Park is already too small for the number of people within the Parish we need to get a lot more land added to it so that we can increase the playground areas the sporting facilities and hopefully a pavilion on the site to meet the needs of the old and young alike within the Parish.

Pavilion The pavilion plans are very exciting. Pavilion at playing fields and larger village hall. The pavilion at the park is in need of replacement, ideally with a further community hall facility. The car park at the Rec Park is too small, the football pitches are oversubscribed with children often travelling out of the Parish to play, mostly in cars. New pavilion at the playing fields. Better sports facilities at the park (i.e. local cricket team/football etc.). Need a far better pavilion for sports teams. Pavilion - to encourage teams to use facilities. Need a new pavilion. IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PAVILION.

Pubs (The Bell Inn and The Maypole) A much improved village pub is necessary. Bell Inn needs modernising. Improvement to food at Bell Inn would be useful to people who no longer drive Bell pub more family friendly and do Ϸ͌͌ϩ ̬ͩ͟ͅϭϑϩ ͌Ϸ ϑ ϩ̬̻͛ͅϭ̪͛͟ ͘΄Ϟ̧ Ͼͩ ̬͟ ̬̬̬ͩ̈́ͅϩϑ̬̟ͩͅ ϑͩ ̬ͩ̈́ϭ̧͟ Creech St Michael needs a 'Village style' pub with a good restaurant. Everything we use is fine the pub beer garden. Developing the grassed area by the carpark would move us and others use it more. I think the pub needs to attract families as all new homes being built are family dwellings. More family friendly, clean & pleasant pub without attractions associated with town pubs. Need a decent pub (The Bell looks awful and its clientele 'rough'). Shops and pub, nice family pub.

The Bell public house needs major improvements. It's a dive and would be an embarrassment to take people there. We'd go there often if it were nice. The frontage and rear garden of The Bell pub could do with improvement The pub - ̬̪ͩ͟ ͟΄ϟ̩ ϑ ̈́ϭ͟͟- ̩ϑ͟ ͌ͩ͘ϭ̬ͩͅϑ̾ ͩ͌ Ϟϭ ϑ ̟͛ϭϑͩ ϟϭͩ͛ͅϭ ͩ͌ ̩ͩϭ Ώ̬̾̾ϑ̟ϭ̧ Ͼ̪ͩ͟ ͌ͩͅ Ϸ̬͛ϭͅϩ̾Ζ̤ ̬̪ͩ͟ ϩ̬͛ͩΖ - 4 people made ill by off ale and baileys etc. The dog fouls in the garden. The pub needs a good sort out. It's is dirty and the garden facilities have dog mess in. It could be a real centre for the community but not in its current state. We would use a village pub if it was a nice one. The Bell Inn - In serious need of refurbishment - could be a gem for the village/community. The Bell Inn - needs improving - so families can go here. The Bell Inn could be more family friendly. The Bell Inn needs sorting out and bringing it up to date inside to attract the right clientele - not clean inside - needs a North Curry feel. The Bell is a very poor village facility. The Bell needs a full refurbishment to bring it up to a much higher standard. The frontage, garden and present interior are VERY unattractive. A no dog policy would also be helpful - can't use it otherwise! We must have better parking facilities for the village shop - an accident waiting to happen unless something is done. Yes Bell Inn. Village Shop. Both need to be more people friendly and health and safety. Yes! The Bell Inn is a disgrace and could be lovely needs to be open more, do tea, coffees etc., embrace cyclists and walkers from canal needs major face-lift. This is a big village getting bigger a needs to cater for everyone from breakfast to dinner a real meeting place - must not let it go. Pub is unfriendly + hard to meet neighbours. Pub updating? The pub is a dive and the shop is too expensive, smelly + bad stock. Needs to be a Tesco express in village.

Village shop "Food shops" post office at Creech. Poor and expensive - needs a Tesco express or Co-op. Larger Village shop needed with longer opening hours Local dentist. Small shopping complex (like Norton F/W) I think the shop is a bit limited. Shop open longer hours. Longer post office opening hours on a Saturday. More shops particularly a baker, butcher and green grocer. Village shop parking Village shop opening hours.

Medical centre Medical centre is overwhelmed and seriously needs help. Appointments can take 2 weeks but are so important to the community. Medical centre needs more GPS!! More doctors at medical centre More Doctors. (2) Medical centre availability of appointments.

Primary School/ pre-school

Enlarge primary school.

Dog litter bins A proper doggy bin by the little green at the back of Alexander Close as the open bin is awful in summer for flies etc. Dog fouling bins- we need more. Dog fouling is a big issue on Hyde Lane and the canal. Extra dog waste bins!! More dog fouling bins needed and litter bins. The alleyway from the park to doctors is full of dog pooh. More dog pooh bins needed. Yes, footpaths could be cleared of dog mess and more bins provided along the canal and in C.Heathfield.

Groups/clubs More for older kids a youth club for example. (2) More groups and clubs that meet outside of working hours.

Karebears Childcare ̋ϑ͛ϭϞϭϑ͛͟ ͅϭϭϩ͟ ͛ϭ̾͌ϟϑ̬̟ͩͅ ΐ̩ϭ͛ϭ ̬ͩ ΐ̪͌ͩͅ ϩ̬ͩ͟΄͛Ϟ ͅϭ̬̟̩Ϟ͌΄͛͟ ΐ̬̩ͩ ̬͌͟ͅϭ ϑͅϩ ͘ϑ̧̻̬̟͛ͅ Parking for CSM Baptist church needs improving. Visitors should not be told to park in residential streets. Karebears would be if it wasn's such an awful standard - we travel 20 mins to another nursery as Karebears horrified us.

Village Hall Village Hall management- have attempted to book on several occasions with no success.

Vets Vets are expensive.

Generally Allotments not mentioned above! Important to me! As a member of T.M.E and the then playing field committee I was responsible for bringing these together in the 1990's. More frequent rubbish collection from fisherman's car park on canal. Better pavements for disabled and elderly and children. Extra salt facilities for bad winters e.g. west view - paddock close to bridge path. Public toilets. With more houses you will need more of the above. We are well served. Seem to be adequate What about vehicle garages and car sales. Upkeep of current footpaths, replace stiles with gates, better footpath signage.

Q10 – ‘OTHER’ SUGGESTIONS FOR NEW F!CILITIES AND PREFERRED LOCATION FOR POTENTIAL NEW PARISH FACILIITES

Additional shops, within the new development Bakery (2) Bakery/deli. Either butchers or bakery. The new development needs a chip shop. Greengrocers. Supermarket within the Parish. Improved village shop. Family pub/restaurant with play area and parking. Creech Heathfield area. Family friendly restaurant. Better pub/restaurant. Village centre pref but not always practical. [& ticked café, takeaway] New (modern) pub. Post office. Dentist. Additional shops, within the new development - LOCATION The commercial centre on the new relief road for the shops, café, takeaway. Shops within developments (2) Additional shops likely to be required but to be installed within heart of new housing to avoid having a detrimental impact on existing shops. Where they are building all the houses. Within the new build? Let them take some pressure instead of all the chaos coming onto the older/original properties. Shops close to new housing will avert the need and reduce the traffic coming into the centre of CSM. Near the main A38 with shops on the new commercial site. Bathpool/ Heathfield development or in/near local shop. Better cheaper shop in Creech St. Michael. In Creech St Michael: North End for shop. Central to village - only if driving/parking improves. Centralised new shop + cafe to reduce car travel. Dentist - medical centre, youth club/cafe ̓ central. Garage forecourt site in village opposite present shop - could be a small area of individual shops and café. Shops: to replace existing garage. Green area next to Bell Inn - Garage area opposite Bell Inn/Shop. Small shopping centre similar to that in Galmington to include bakers/butchers/greengrocer/cafe/takeaway. Next to the medical centre and pharmacy.

Youth Club Youth clubs in existing facilities/use village hall, churches (2) Youth club at Baptist church community hall. (2) Youth club- if done well. Youth club to stop the late night gatherings at the park. Youth club in village hall. (4) Village hall. [Youth club]

YC - in village hall. Takeaway - new building area/eastern relief rd. Youth club - village hall for this? Slipway for kayaks very good idea. Youth club and cafe in Creech St Michael village and in the new development. Youth club at the park. Youth club and café at the park. Youth club based at rec ground. (2) Recreation field area for youth club. Youth Club - near recreation ground. In CSM. Youth clubs - School classrooms and teachers.

Sporting facilities Sporting facilities at the recreation field - liked the idea of the new sports/community hall large enough for 5 a-side football. In a central position close to school/playing fields. Golf club. All weather sports facilities. Another multiskills court, skateboard ramp, more play equipment in the park. Outdoor swimming pool, picnic area with tables and chairs. Squash/badminton/table tennis/climbing wall/trampolines/gym equipment. Sporting Facilities = park or close to. In new sports pavilion in the recreation ground. Café/refreshments to also be available in new sports pavilion. Sporting facilities- recreation field/school youth club-school/village hall shop/cafe-new development areas. Sports facilities at the park. Sports facilities at the playing field. Sports facilities, field by rec. Sports clubs & activities @ the recreational ground or using the canal. Rowing mobility hire, cycling for all levels & capabilities e.g. with some bike hire. Archery and shooting. Decent changing room and public loos with baby change and toddler loo. Sporting facilities - between CSM and Creech Heathfield. Anywhere where there is available space and the surrounding residents are happy for a facility to be placed there. Rowing on river. Athletics club cycle track. More play areas away from new homes and estates.

Slipway into the canal Canal slipway near Creech car park, more allotments alongside current all else as part of new developments. Enough car parking by canal. Slipway - Another jetty by fisherman's car park. Slipway by canal car park. Slipway from existing landing platform by canal side carpark. Slipway - beside canal bridge where steps are. Slipway near canal car park. Allotment plots next to existing or on edge of new developments. Improve parking by canal and incorporate kayak slipway and cafe/ local info/ artisan/ wildlife centre.

By the railway line.

Additional car parking by the canal By Creech canal carpark. Keep the lovely network of footpaths and quick escape to the countryside. Place to park canoes for a monthly rental charge - we would make use of this!! Another canalside carpark would help reduce traffic congestion at current facility which is oversubscribed. By canal. Near the canal car park.

Café Café in centre of CSM. (7) Café - that is not part of the church. In the centre, somewhere accessible to the whole village. I get asked daily if the village has a cafe, always by cyclists and walkers. Café in the centre somewhere, likewise bakery/deli. Centre of CSM for cafe/restaurant/takeaway. Café - where car sales are at present. Café - not a chain and youth club possibly. Close to canal in CSM village. Café and takeaway in CSM. Café - Hyde Lane/school/surgery area. Café - possibly in park. Café = Park. Café, youth club and sporting facilities at the park. Café - Recreational ground cafe near play area. Café between Creech and Creech Heathfield. Café in additional shops. Café & takeaway - possibly integrated with Bell Inn. Café in CSM (1)

Takeaway Takeaway @ Bathpool. Take away in shop closed down opposite Heathfield school or a row of custom built shop and takeaway in one of new estates - Bathpool area. Takeaway within CSM. S-market wherever most accessible. Takeaway by The Bell.

Allotment plots Allotments between Creech and Bathpool. As part of new development and adjoining the motorway. Allotment plots - within reach of new development. Allotments near village centre and new developments. Close to village centre. In CSM.

Allotments somewhere within walking distance of the villages. Additional allotment plots adjacent those North of Creech Heathfield. Allotments - south CSM. Extend the allotment patch at Creech Heathfield.

Generally Parking facilities for St Michael Church. (2) Car parking central to village. (Don't know where). Scout hut. They need to grow the dr surgery. Can't get appointment now let alone with more residents. More dog waste bins especially on entrance to field by park. Police station. Improved highway infrastructure and safety measures. By existing shops, vet and car firm measures should be taken to give pedestrians more safety e.g. as undertaken elsewhere road surfaces raised slightly and paved with features to make area pedestrian friendly. Thus vehicles will have more respect for location. Removal of ugly posts and wirescape in main village street. A railway halt so people can get to Taunton without having to use their car. Revamp Maypole Inn please! More activities and a meeting place cafe etc. Additional educational provision as required. More bus stops in Creech Heathfield, pub in C.Heathfield , film club, adult learning and sports classes in the evening, perhaps a language or evening classes in the school village hall. General upgrade of village to enhance sense of community. Perhaps the pub/shop could be a focus to keep a central point to the village. Not sure where they could be? Knock down the car lot opposite the shop create a village green! If I win the lottery I will buy it! Houses being built should include off road parking. Infrastructure for new houses. Q) How to maintain the village, with urban expansion? Creech is big enough as it is without any more building, it's meant to be a rural village not a town. We want to remain a village, not an extension of Taunton. None stop trying to make our village bigger. As said before build no more houses. No more houses. Over 900 houses were built at Bathpool/Langaller and no shops/cafes/pub serve this community. Houses should instead be built on brown sites such as the old market in Taunton and the old British cellophane site in Bridgwater. New motorway junction at Walford Cross/ Durston.

Respondents where location could not be identified due to selection of multiple aspects Village hall, recreational field, primary school. [youth club, sporting facilities] Middle of estate, near the play area, along canal. [additional shops, café, takeaway, youth club, slipway/parking] Adjacent to the Rec Park or in the Village Centre. [additional shops, café, takeaway, youth club, sporting facilities] Centrally. [all aspects ticked]

Centre of the village/easy access for whole of Creech. [café, youth club] Creech Central. [additional shops, takeaway] In the centre of Creech St Michael. [additional shops, café, takeaway] In the village and easy accessible to village people. Not on the new developments! [additional shops, café, takeaway, youth club, sporting facilities, slipway/parking] In the centre of the village if possible. [additional shops, café, youth club] Hyde lane, Creech St Michael. [additional shops, takeaway, youth club, sporting facilities, slipway] In the village centre or the new housing on Hyde lane. [café, takeaway] The Hyde lane end of the village. [additional shops, café, takeaway] Recreational field and village hall. [café, youth club, sporting facilities] Next to the doctors surgery and chemist they could have developed and have more shops there. [additional shops, café, takeaway] Bottom of village at north end so central to CSM and Creech Heathfield. [takeaway, sporting facilities] Area E on the map so local people do not have to drive. [additional shops, café, takeaway, allotments, sporting facilities] Anywhere in CSM. [additional shops, café, takeaway] Within the village CSM. [additional shops, café, youth club, allotments, slipway/parking] Within village area. [additional shops, youth club] Creech St Michael area. [additional shops, youth club, allotments] Within the existing boundaries of CSM. [café, takeaway, youth club, sporting facilities, slipway] Creech or Creech Heathfield we have nothing in Hamlet. [all aspects ticked] Rec and in new development. [café, youth club, sporting facilities] New builds at Briton Ash. [additional shops, café, takeaway, youth club, sporting facilities] New estate. [additional shops, youth club, sporting facilities] Purpose built building on new development. [youth club, sports facilities] West of the M5 motorway. [additional shops, café, allotments, slipway/parking] Within new development. [additional shops, café, youth club] Within new development. [additional shops, café, takeaway, youth club] Within new development. [additional shops, café, youth club, sporting facilities] Within the recently developed areas. [café, takeaway, youth club, sporting facilities]

Q11 – COMMUNITY

Comments from new residents As a new resident social events are good, really enjoyed party in the park. As a relative newcomer a simple 'hello' when you walk past each other in the street would be a start! Community newsletter was nice to receive to find out what's going on. Keep that community new booklet - Ͼ̪̈́ ͅϭΐ ͩ͌ ̩ͩϭ ϑ͛ϭϑ ϑͅϩ ̩ϑΏϭ Ϸ͌΄ͅϩ ̬ͩ Ώϭ͛Ζ ̩ϭ̾͘Ϸ΄̾ ̈́ϑͅΖ ̩ͩϑ̻͟ͅ ͩ͌ ̩ͩϭ ϭϩ̬̬̟ͩͅ team. The community leaflet is lovely. We just moved her. Having activities that everyone is invited to help keep community spirit. Facebook and website group also helpful. As I have just moved into the village area I feel these are a great idea!

Hospitality/neighbourliness

Be friendly/make them feel welcome. (4) Just be good neighbours. Just people being friendly, which they already are! Not make them feel unwanted as you don't want the houses! Not moaning about new houses - ̬ͩ ϟϑ̪ͩͅ Ϟϭ ̩ϭ̾͘ϭϩ ϑͅϩ ΐϭ ϑ̾̾ ͅϭϭϩ ͌̈́͟ϭΐ̩ϭ͛ϭ ͩ͌ ̬̾Ώϭ̧ Welcoming, civil and polite.

Raising awareness and printed/electronic communications WELCOME PACK for new households/arrivals. (15) To include: local information and organisations, diary of events, invitation to join social activities, lists facilities/clubs/groups, CSM website link. Can be delivered via: Parish Council, letter boxes, given to school children, when new people join the doctors.

PARISH MAGAZINE Parish magazine. (3) Parish magazine, website. (3) Delivery of village newsletter. Deliver Creech newsletter? Here notices about the village of forthcoming events. Delivery of at least 3 free copies of church & Parish newsletters; giving information on how to subscribe to each for future copies. Approach them in their homes and distribute the community magazine. However, my personal experience having joined clubs almost no new people are interested. Stressed out paying off massive mortgages and living beyond their means! Continue with Newsletter maybe monthly. Creech Magazine providing local information - website publicity perhaps use village hall for newcomers welcome evening with different village groups available to talk about their facilities. Communication/mag circulars from csm.com.org ; church mag both churches, distribution of news letter from society's operating in CSM i.e. garden club - model rail clubs - activities clubs e.g. dance, PE and other specialist organisations. Email newsletter. Information for each home on local facilities and CSM newsletter. Make full use of Parish magazines. Welcome letters included in Parish magazine. Make sure all get community news mag. Restructure Parish council to ensure all estates/villages/hamlets are represented. Quarterly Parish magazine is very good, so good if it can be delivered to new housing. The Creech quarterly pamphlet is great. Regular newsletter and meetings. Newsletter inviting them to attend facilities and as before a central bar/cafe which is cosy and welcoming. Newsletter/booklet-already very good! Open village meetings/coffee mornings. Mums and toddler group. Welcome newsletter (info on services, shops, advice and volunteer guide, point of contact). Advertise events in the village. Advertise our village clubs/pub/churches/cafe etc. (filled in a questionnaire for a cafe at Baptist church) with a leaflet when moving in.

Clearer and more frequent public notification of all Parish events (pub quizzes to village fetes). Better use of social media, Facebook, twitter, Instagram etc. advertising events and recording events, updating website appearance. Communicate village events. If they have access to events programme in the village i.e. updated website etc. They can then decide which groups to join/support. Introduction to clubs and interest meeting and associations. Village website needs keeping up to date for newbies to refer to. Making sure all events in Creech are well advertised. Making sure everyone is aware and invited to events in the village. Make sure they know all the activities taking place in the village, unfortunately most are simply not interested.

DIRECT COMMUNICATION/CONSULTATION/MEETINGS Communicate with them, advising them of facilities doctors etc. and setting up a meeting club 2/3 times a year. Communication. Consult them. Hold meetings to learn what they need. Meetings at village hall or pub. Local meetings. More social gatherings like party in the park. More groups/hobbies etc. Neighbourhood/ community meetings so we can be involved together. Talk to them, share community activities. We have to have general meetings. Talk!! Through the schools and the church - village events at key dates of the year - summer fetes, Christmas carols etc. Younger residents to call on new owner.

PARISH COUNCIL/VILLAGE AGENTS By having two village agents one agent for Creech Parish only to visit newcomers and talking to them about what happens in the community. The village agent could do a 'meet and greet!' to advise on village matters or pop a leaflet detailing their roll and how to get in touch. The village magazine is a great resource. Open invitation to Parish meetings. Be encouraged to attend the Parish council meetings. Get them to attend PC meetings to find out what goes on in village.

PARISH NOTICEBOARDS Improved and more notice boards around the village. They need a Parish notice board within the new development. More noticeboards saying what is on offer club, societies etc.

Whole community events Community days like litter picks, volunteer canal groups, anything to look after their community. Not to have too many new builds and not to many vehicles. Community events. Community events for children. Events at the pub. Community events, knowledge about what's going on in the Parish.

Have more regular village events to get people involved - street markets, yard sales etc. If the village feel safer then more people would move around it, having more facilities i.e. cafe would be so popular and bring people to the village from the canal. Events at the hall or park. Fun days & community events. Fun days like the one that happened a few months ago. Fun days, evening sports events i.e. rounders, to integrate use of the local pub. Fun days/sports events/family friendly pub. More community events and at the park, village hall and churches for all ages. More community events like Party in the Park. (10) Party in the park is good maybe a winter event - bonfire night/ Christmas carols etc. Christmas events, village hall events like mini markets, party in park. More events similar, on a smaller scale, to the Party in the Park. Party in the park, flower show etc. More village events such as the fun day in July. More community meetings and events. More events like party in the park (Xmas time) and meet your neighbour events? (Christmas Creech by candlelight event?). More Local events. More village social events. Open day/seek what new villagers are seeking. Organised events such as party in the party, voluntary befriending organisations. Organised outdoor events. Parish events, church lead events. A much improved pub that offers a country pub look and feel. Planned social events. Putting on events for families. Social functions, quiz night at pub. Some type of day out on the playing field. Street Parties - Village Hall social activities at Christmas/Easter/National holidays etc. Street party. Village Hall do's. Suitable events e.g. fair. Village day, more community get togethers. Village days and events at school/village hall etc. A village Fete welcome day on the Field of Creech Park. Have more community events. Good community events and facilities. Have a street by street get together. It would be nice if there were more social events / family activities to encourage more community interaction. Kids special event party/disco in village hall e.g. Halloween, Xmas and Easter, parent/carer must be present.

Clubs/Groups Community groups e.g. WI, gardening club etc.

More activities such as knitting, exercise classes etc. and a much "nicer" village pub. The Bell really lets the village ϩ͌ΐ̧ͅ Ͼ̪ͩ͟ ϩ̬͛ͩΖ̤ ̟͛΄ϞϞΖ ϭͩϟ̧ ϑͅϩ ̻̾͌͌͟ ϑ ̈́ϭ͟͟ Ϸ͛͌̈́ ̩ͩϭ ͌΄̬ͩ͟ϩϭ̧ Community groups, all ages. Things like party in the park/village shows etc. Community groups. Drop in coffee mornings. Invite them to coffee mornings, put an offer in the magazine. Get to know your events. More coffee/cafe events in village hall for younger parents. Continue: Village hall coffee mornings + party in the park event, community magazine and generally saying 'hello' to everyone you meet. Village hall coffee mornings and evenings with special invitations to new villagers. CSM has many clubs so new people should be encouraged to join existing clubs. Clubs, dance + wellbeing for all ages, community cafe like N. Curry. Create community / social groups and events e.g. local nature reserve initiative, youth/ adult/ elderly clubs. Encourage them to club, coffee mornings, etc. Events by organisations aimed at encouraging new residents. Improved social activities. Maybe once every couple of months have a meet & greet morning/afternoon/ all day in village hall, with refreshments the groups of the Parish can have stalls. In Adsborough we have a 'meet the neighbours' social when there are incomers. New comers meetings evenings? More sports clubs. Plenty of activities for children sports clubs for both girls and boys, youth club. Sports clubs and youth clubs. Youth club for certain age group. The pub (Bell Inn) is an essential link up with friends and make newcomers welcome. More Volunteer organisations - Red Cross, St Johns, training facilities for the young. New diverse clubs at the village hall and sports pavilion. Offer more groups to join.

Places to meet/facilities Make the village more attractive by replacing van sales with village green, cafe and shops. More of a centre to the village e.g. meeting places that are safe to walk to - e.g. better traffic calming and a good pub. More of a community centre more community events. Good amenities. A shopping centre where people could meet, especially if it were near the school and health centre. Community coffee/cake shop run by volunteers. Good cafe. Better pub. Social Activities in village hall. Additional facilities to keep them focused on the Parish even if commuting daily to work on the motorway. Implementation of facilities ticked in No10. [all aspects ticked on Q10] Lots of green areas for families to have fun!! More green field sites and common land to allow people leisure time and recreational time. More facilities at the park for families-i.e. sports centre/sports clubs. More social clubs for the elderly. Places to meet - Churches, cafe (with books).

Provide a varied range of facilities, activities and community groups to suit all ages and interests. Provide safe links for all to these facilities and premises. Provide good facilities like the pub/shops and village hall events. Some kind of community centre/ meeting place within new development. Village Hall activities

PUB Better pub! Currently a dreadful place! Eatery that you can enjoy the food. "A meeting place" It says it all that your prize draw is for a meal nowhere near our village. A nice pub and family facilities please. Better family friendly pub (Bell). Better pub, making party in the park residents only. Friendly pub; community centre. Improve pub in Creech, better parking at shop - no through way for traffic moving from A38 to A358. Improve the existing pub, make it more family friendly. Good examples of community project include party in the park and flower show. Improved pub with regular quizzes and music and meeting point for community groups. New landlords at the bell and upgrade of the pub. New pub, new shops. Open a new pub which isn't full of miserable locals.

Managing pressure on resources A much larger primary school and proper off road parking for staff and drop off pupils away from Hyde Lane currently is a bottle neck and large vehicles find it extremely difficult to make progress. By ensuring there are sufficient medical facilities, transport, schools, shops etc. Prevent competition for school places. Ensure adequate space around properties ensure adequate parking. Provide play areas for families to come together. Provide adequate facilities such as school places, bus services, food shops, doctors (currently 3 weeks waiting time to see doctors). Sufficient facilities available so that they don't feel a burden and existing locals aren't alienated.

Facilitating integration Encourage people to be proud of the Parish by keeping it clean & litter free. Form litter-pick groups. Monitor numbers of people from ethnic groups and introduce them to us natives to cement cohesion amongst the community.

Generally Accessibility- putting things on when people can attend. If all during the working day then excludes those working full time and it ends up a commuter town with no one socializing or participating. Effective publicity. Get them to start feeling part of the village e.g. more people at the village hall. Local jobs for local people provides pride in the community. Support for elderly people who have no transport or friends in the village. Up to each individual.

Other views of existing residents If newcomers want to join the community they will seek it out. They need to make the effort to join in the village - we welcome newcomers but they don't seem interested. By joining in activities run in the village and attending the Parish council meetings. By joining in village activities i.e. churches meetings, flower show, WI, coffee mornings etc. By joining local activities, schools etc. Shop locally. Attend functions/clubs. Support community events. The village Hall have 2 coffee mornings and lunch and had hoped the new residents would integrate, but this hasn't ̩ϑ͘͘ϭͅϭϩ̧ Ͼ̪ͩ͟ ̩ͩϭ ΄͟΄ϑ̾ ͘ϭ͌̾͘ϭ ̩ͩϑͩ ϟ͌̈́ϭ̧ Support local pubs. We already have party in the park. W.I. gardening club etc. Pub and village hall. Up to community to adapt and be more inviting. They need to join the existing clubs + groups in the village to keep them going and not use CSM as a base to sleep and work. There are plenty of groups run in the village hall, Baptist church, school, Parish church and children centre already. There are plenty of things to join in if they want to. They should try harder. Adapt to the local way of life, and join in the community spirit. To join the community as it is and not try and change it. Be considerate to existing village community. Be respectful to the countryside and village environment including be vary of pedestrians/cyclists and drive slowly. Stop speeding we are a rural location and stop dogs messing on footpaths more dog bins needed and police in the area. Calm down when driving round village. Park cars responsibly not on blind bends. Respect the countryside e.g. don't drop litter and pick up after your dog. Should they not integrate themselves? Teach them how to pick up their rubbish and keep area around their house tidy. Ë́Ϟ͛ϑϟϭ ̩ͩϭ ϟ͌΄ͩ͛ͅΖ ̬̬͛ͩ͘͟ ϑͅϩ Ώ̬̾̾ϑ̟ϭ ̬̾Ϸϭ̤ ̬̪ͩ͟ ΄͘ ͩ͌ ̩ͩϭ̧̈́ ̬͌͟ͅϩϭ͛ ̩͌ͩϭ͛͟ - parking, dropping litter, picking up after their dogs! Tell them that other people of varying ages live in the village, and not to let their children cause noise nuisance to neighbours every evening and weekend. Public are powerless against vested interests and with planners who seen intent on covering green spaces, so we will over run by in-comers. Develop SLOWLY - to absorb a few people at a time into the community. Sudden, large numbers is always bad! Keep the developments small and in keeping with a village. Stop building more houses and keep it a village, not a small town, to maintain its identity. D̪͌ͩͅ ̻͌ͅΐ̧ ̳̩̬̻ͅ ̭̓ ̩ϑ͟ ϑ̾͛ϭϑϩΖ ̾͌ͩ͟ ̬ͩ͟ ͟ϭ͟ͅϭ ͌Ϸ ϟ͌̈́̈́΄̬ͩͅΖ ϑ͟ ϑ ͂Ͼ̍̍!϶Ȩ Too much building know - any increase will destroy community. Stop future building plans. By CSM not overgrown itself. Do not want a bigger community as this is a village. We do not want the village to have a bigger population.

̓ϭ ̩͌͟΄̾ϩ̧̪ͩͅ ̓ϭ ̩͌͟΄̾ϩ ̻ϭϭ͘ ͌΄͛ ϟ͌̈́̈́΄̬ͩͅΖ ̈́͟ϑ̾̾ ϑͅϩ ̩ͩϭ ͅϭΐ ϩϭΏϭ̾͌̈́͘ϭͩͅ ̩͌͟΄̾ϩ Ϟϭ ϑ ϩ̬ϷϷϭ͛ϭͩͅ ϟ͌̈́̈́΄̬ͩͅΖ with their own separate facilities. You will be lucky if there's any community left with the amount of people coming in. At the moment village life is ruined in CSM village has been completely isolated. Communications! I feel we already have enough people in our community I don't need any more people. I don't agree with new houses so they shouldn't be made welcome!! Deter them from joining. Encourage them to go and live in Scotland :) Does the author of this live in CSM? Move them elsewhere. Don't know/not sure. (3) To speak English and have good morals.

Q13 – IMPORTANT HISTORIC BUILDINGS & FEATURES

Pub The Bell Inn. (8) The Bell Inn which is a grade 2 listed. As before in the pub. We mustn't let it go, but needs a refurbishment. Bell Inn exterior is shabby; Baptist Church is ugly. The Bell Inn could be an attractive village amenity. I would like to see an improvement on The Bell Inn as it looks rundown. The Bell Inn needs improving. The Bell Inn needs refurb. The Bell pub needs to be improved/ decorated. Bell Inn pub. Local shop (premier).

Weed control/verges Overgrown canal bridge on main road in village canal bank alongside cruets meadow. Queensdown covered in brambles now taking over the grass & pathways. Fronting these houses. Many pavements and verges are unkempt/ potentially dangerous or show little pride in our neighbourhood. General maintenance of verges and pavements. The banks and maintenance of the canal. Clean up of weeds in pavement. More regular cutting the grass in the church yard.

Village Centre The village lacks a centre. Improvement would therefore be desirable opposite the shop/ in the area of the bell inn. Centre of village and bell inn, incl. old smithy. Area behind Bell Inn. The area from the Bell Inn to the corner of Hyde Lane always has litter including cigarette ends, weeds and generally looks very scruffy.

Canal Canal path is well maintained. Keep it up!

Canal viaduct over river tone to be listed. Viaduct Canal access. Improve canal walks. Canal. We must prevent the urbanisation of the [CANAL] running through the Parish of Creech Saint Michael this is one of the main attractions in the area. The tow path along the canal should be tarmac that along the entire length of the Parish office and Michael to enable walkers cyclists and dog walkers to be able to use this facility in bad weather.

Finger posts/pill boxes/war memorial/post boxes/phone boxes Metal road finger posts need painting. Metal road sign posts need to be painted. Road finger buts broken - please repair. Yes, finger posts need proper maintenance or they will rust away. Very important to maintain our heritage. Pill boxes restored. The pill box alongside the canal (near new wildlife area opposite Crufts Meadow). The pill box!! Plaques in pill boxes explaining their importance during the war. War memorial in Creech. More phone boxes in the village. Phone boxes - for those without mobile phones. Phone boxes - if they work or used for something else as at West Monkton. The phone boxes, if not in used could be turned into a book shop, like they have in Burrowbridge. Phone boxes - Would be if tree was removed from it at Creechwood terrace (but not interested). Post boxes - keep in use. Post box required at M5 end of village (Arundel box v. close to box on St Michael road).

Bridges and railway The railway bridge needs painting - welcoming planting on entry into village, van/car sales area. The Tone river bridges will require replacement eventually. Restore 2 way traffic over river bridge - dangerous now. ϭͩͩϭ͛ ̬̟̩ͩ͟ ͌Ώϭ͛ ͦϻΖϩϭ̪ͦ͟ ̩΄̈́͘ϭϩ Ϟϑϟ̻ Ϟ̬͛ϩ̟ϭ̤ ͌͟ ̬̪ͩ͟ ͌ͩͅ dangerous. Re-open Creech railway station.

Recreation ground The recreation park could be further improved. Car parking, more children's play, a larger field with better sporting facilities. Recreation ground - needs a decent club hut/building with changing rooms, public loos and tea shop/cafe. Picnic site alongside canal with tea rooms or shop facility. The pavilion @ the park.

Mill

Mill Paper mill.

Generally Just monitor and keep them from becoming either derelict/unusable. ̓ϭ̬̪͛̾͟ͅ ̓ϑ̧̻̾ School and pre-school. ̳̩ϭ ̟͛ϭϭͅ ͘͟ϑϟϭ ͌ϷϷ ̓ϭͩ͟ ̬͂ϭΐ ͍ϩ̟͌ ̈́ϭ̤͟͟ ̬̾ͩͩϭ͎̤͛ ̬̪ͩ͟ ̬ͅ ̩ͩϭ ̩ϭϑ͛ͩ ͌Ϸ ̧̭̓ Countryside returned. It is a pity new housing estates are so expensive and such very poor quality. Less stench from abattoir. Wider footpaths.

Q14 – DESIGN ASPECTS OF NEW BUILD HOUSING

Housing mix Don't support any more housing but if there has to be more housing it only low cost starter homes 1 or 2 bedrooms only. Affordable housing. Bungalow for the elderly to rent. Bungalows or single storey.

Design Something different from all the other estates around the country - The EU has some brilliant designs! None of the new houses are in keeping with the village-they are characterless! Energy efficient, not at high density. Please preserve our dark skies and resist too much street lighting and especially around highways/public open space. Too much light pollution already from new developments at MH towards Hestercombe/Quantocks/W.Monkton i.e. northwards along A38. Solar panels fitted as standard. If we have to have more eco style best but really feel already too many new homes and not with local people in them! Not 'eco-'style''? Actual low- carbon footprint housing. What do you mean by 'eco-ͩ͟Ζ̾ϭ̪̜ !̾̾ ͅϭΐ ̩͌΄̬̟͟ͅ ̩͌͟΄̾ϩ Ϟϭ ΐϭ̾̾ ̬͟ͅ΄̾ϑͩϭϩ Ϸ͌͛ ͌͟΄ͅϩ ϑͅϩ ͩϭ̈́͘ϭ͛ϑͩ΄͛ϭ ϟ͌ͩͅrol and energy efficient. New housing needs proper planning and care e.g. housing around square, development planned to provide attractive vistas, space between buildings. Proper landscaping, road planning sympathetic to form and structure of development, no tall electricity or other service ports that are visually intrusive(see new relief road)Roads to be of an adequate width for the needs of the residents. Houses should be of good size, well laid out with plenty of space in between, set well back from roads, with plenty of parking space, green space and trees. No 3/4 high rise blocks. Some of the new houses built in West View Gardens are too tall + do not fit with the surrounding houses. They overlook existing properties and should not have been allowed. House with larger rooms not just more rooms. No more timber frame houses. If new houses are a must space around the houses is important.

Party walls need to be more sound-proofed.

Parking Adequate parking for new homes and sensibly wide access roads. Ample off road parking. Car parking for school? Send out traffic warden? Do not build big blocks of flats or houses with no or little off road parking. Parks, trees and planting are vital. Less on street parking. Much more parking needed on new estate also need to do something about the volume of commercial vans in residential areas, esp. from large/ national or regional companies. Off road parking. Sufficient off road parking to suit property and likely occupancy.

Green space Ideally on brown field sites to protect our special green field countryside space. We do not want to be an extension of Taunton! There must be a green belt of land around village to stop it becoming a suburb of Taunton, we have had more than our share of new housing in the last 2 years to swamp our village its time they expanded elsewhere in Taunton. Houses need gardens. Larger gardens, with less "wasted" roadside areas. Reduce the urban impression created in a semi-rural environment. I think it is a shame all the fields around the edge of the village are disappearing - we need to keep what are left. Also: - Less houses on the plots - the gardens must be tiny and they looked crammed in which adds to the built up feel where we have lost fields. More fields!

No more development Only if we have to have them. 2 above options - if we have to. None- as there has been enough built already. !̾̾ ̟ϭ̬̟ͩͩͅ ͩ͌͌ ̈́΄ϟ̩ ̬ͅ ̩ͩϭ ϑ͛ϭϑ ϑ̩̾ͩ͌΄̟̩ Ͼ ̩ϑΏϭ ̬ͩϟ̻ϭϩ ϰ Ϟ͌Εϭ͟ Ͼ ϩ̪͌ͩͅ ̩̬̻ͩͅ Ͼ ͟΄͌͛ͩ͘͘ ϑͅΖ̈́͌͛ϭ ͅϭΐ ̩͌΄̬̟͟ͅ ̬ͅ Creech or Taunton. But only if we have to have any more! None would be preferable! But we have had our fair share surely. But would rather no more housing without A358/A303 and Hyde Lane improvements first. Creech doesn't need any more new houses. Creech has enough development soon we will be a suburb or Taunton! Don't support too much new housing. Enough is enough. Far too many already. However we do not support further new housing in our Parish - we wish to remain in a village and not a suburb of Taunton. Enough is enough. I am very sad that the council has seen fit to take away from my children the village life that we have worked so hard to get. I think Creech is now at bursting point and would not benefit from any more housing. Could more be done with Mill Lane as this is an historic part of the village?

I think there has been enough new builds. If we must have more houses. No more housing yet. No more new houses - we have too many now! No more please, it is just greed on the part of the developers! None- but if we have to have it. Place no new housing. Prefer no more new housing. There are too many already. Too many here already. Too many new housing estates going up putting increased pressure on a village infrastructure i.e. schooling, roads and new lack of green fields! Too much already. We don't need any more houses please! Local authority/Parish council should never have allowed new development alongside the canal. What a dreadful shame. We don't need any more in Creech! We don't need new housing. We have our fair share already.

Generally Access to facilities such as parks and places to walk - this seems good in Creech though. Again infrastructure for accommodating new housing and flooding. Improve road structures before building houses.

Q15 – GREEN SPACE OTHER LOCATIONS

Specific areas/locations All areas to East of main village road. All fields to east of CSM. Fields beyond eastern extent of village and all remaining land within vicinity of canal. Fields to east of village along canal. Fields back of N.End to back of Dillons rd and to right of worthy lane to canal. Fields behind Dillons rd. Fields behind Dillons way Fields adjacent to Dillons Road. Retain Merlyn's copse as a wildlife area. Concern about creeping development along A38. Would like to see Quantock AOB extended to include Adsborough & Thurloxton. Farmland surroundings Adsborough. Lands between M Heathfield and Walford Cross Walford All fields left of the Health Centre up to the motorway/down to canal. The fields behind Creech Terrace, the canal and Charlton. Fields north of motorway-they have already saturated this area. Wildlife are being forced into even smaller green spaces.

Fields along road to Ham. Fields along The Drove at end of Bull Street. Fields opposite Hopkins. Fields adjoining Ham Road. Protect fields between canal and Worthy Lane. Creech Heathfield. Field off of Larkfleet development. Fields at rear of West View- extremely important.

Flooding Too much flood danger (relating to fields in between canal and railway). Anywhere where flooding is an issue or where building would make existing flood defences less effective or flooding worse especially around Ham The fields between canal and railway are on floodplain and regularly flood.

Green Spaces All All green spaces. All green spaces. Already vastly overdeveloped. Green spaces for everyone. All the space we have left, our village has already had more than its fair share of new houses. The remaining green spaces should be protected. Shouldn't be developed on. The area is already overdeveloped. All the surrounding green areas should be protected. Amenity land needs to be set aside to preserve the rural character of the village and to enable it to be used for all recreational use i.e. dog walking and picnicking etc.

Issues with scope of the survey Why have all the fields to west of Salts Farm up to motorway not been considered in this survey? We are concerned at the lack of depth/consultation with this survey. The Parish of Creech extends beyond the map. All areas of the Parish should be considered and consultation requested. Not just areas E,F,G. For example why is the former golf course area not included in the survey? The Land is NOT owned by the Parish Council and they should not invite the villagers to believe it can be commandeered for their use. None, I entirely disagree with these protectionist policies.

No more development If you build on all these places, CSM will no longer be a Parish, it will be a town. Protect as much as possible as developments have already far exceeded what I support and ruined area. We have had our fair share of development. We have had our fair share of new development in Creech St Michael no more please. No large development in village. Don't build any more houses. No more building of any kind for 100 years No more building! Its too much already! No more development.

No more development we have more than our fair share. Stop building in Creech move on to North Petherton. STOP THE BUILDING!! Stop building on green space and green belt and fill 'Firepool' (the old market) with all the houses Taunton needs. Bell Inn needs complete exterior overhaul, it's an eyesore. Please leave C St Michael as it is! We've had too much development already - we chose to live in a village!!! Not a Town!

Q16 – MOTORWAY SCREENING

100% yes but this is not enough, special fencing needs to be installed as they have on the M3. A fence is more effective, trees and shrubs let as much sound through (especially in winter). A mix of evergreen trees and shrubs of varying colour and height most desirable although not a priority. And place TPO's on them and not trees in owners gardens which prove problematic, and p/c no help at all. Any trees are good. Anything to hide the new estates also. As so many of our beautiful trees were destroyed in building new houses. it would be nice to replace some. As soon as possible. Brilliant idea, more for the environment than noise pollution. But it will not work very well. Construct a blind and use noise reducing tarmac on motorway. Creech heathfield is so noisy the motorway is poor between wellington and b/water. Needs new surface. Dependent on cost. Development should finance this. D̪͌ͩͅ ̩̬̻ͩͅ ̬ͩ ΐ̬̾̾ ̈́ϑ̻ϭ ϑ ̟͛ϭϑͩ ϩϭϑ̾ ͌Ϸ ϩ̬ϷϷϭ͛ϭͅϟϭ̧ Especially up around Creech Heathfield. Fencing and barriers should also be used to reduce noise pollution. For environmental reasons and peace! Good for noise and wellbeing. Good idea - money should be spent on this as a priority. How effective will it be? If needed then developer should foot this bill. These houses were purchased without such screening. ϾϷ ̩ͩϭΖ ϩ͌ͥͩͅ Ϟ΄̬̾ϩ ̩͌΄͟ϭ͟ ͅϭϑ͛ ̩ͩϭ ̈́͌ͩ͌͛ΐϑΖ̤ ̩ͩϭΖ ΐ̪͌ͩͅ ̩ϑΏϭ ͩ͌ ΐϑͩ͟ϭ ̈́͌ͅϭΖ ͌ͅ ͩ͛ϭϭ͟ ͩ͌ ͛ϭϩ΄ϟϭ ̬͌͟ͅϭ̧ It depends on the proposal, it can only happen with the assistant of landowners who need to be incentivised. M5 should also be resurfaced with noise reduction materials. Makes sense doesn't it? Money better spent elsewhere. Money could be spent elsewhere. Traffic from new houses creating more noise in CSM. More trees generally around to bring back the wildlife. Motorway noise high in Creech Heathfield area. Motorway noise is a big problem. Motorway noise is not an issue for me. Must be done. NOISE IS VERY BAD FOR US.

Not heard of this proposal. Not needed before new houses were built. If a screen is needed, perhaps you should have put houses elsewhere not next to the Mway. Noticeably works. Only if the development pay for it. Pleased to see new trees replacement on new bypass road and bus shelter in the future. Poor screening allows excess noise and pollution especially for asthma sufferers. Require detailed information to consider a response to the question. If development is beside M5 then the ϩϭΏϭ̾͌͘ϭ͛͟ ̩͌͟΄̾ϩ Ϟϭ ϑ̻͟ϭϩ ͩ͌ ϟ̬͌ͩ͛ͅϞ΄ͩϭ ͩ͌ ̩̬ͩ͟ ̩͟ϟ͛ϭϭ̧̬̟̪ͅͅ Screen for abattoir (leylandii or similar?). Seek to raise some of the funding by a small 'one-off' increase in Parish 'rate'. Should be paid for by DFP. Should have been done when motorway built but don't think it would work. Should include sections facing Creech Heathfield . Sooner the better but plant at the correct time so they have a chance to live. ̳̩ϭ ̈́͌ͩ͌͛ΐϑΖ ϑͅϩ Ώ̬̾̾ϑ̟ϭ ϑ͛ϭ ΐ̩ϭ͛ϭ ̩ͩϭΖ ϑ͛ϭ̧ ϾϷ Ζ͌΄ ϩ̪͌ͩͅ ΐϑͩͅ ͩ͛ϑϷϷ̬ϟ ̬͌͟ͅϭ̤ ϩ̪͌ͩͅ ϟ͌̈́ϭ ̾͘΄͟ ̩ͩϭ͛ϭ ̬͟ ͌ͅ maintenance what there is! The motorway is quieter when it goes into a cut in the earth, therefore earth mounds would provide better sound proofing. The motorway should be effective we screened on both sides with both evergreen and deciduous trees to lessen the visual impact noise and pollution that it causes which is blowing directly into CSM and the rest of the Parish. The noise is too much, the more the better. The sooner the better. These must be looked after and not allowed to grow wild. This is a fantastic idea, who would object to this?! This should be paid for by developers and not passed to the Parish. This would be of great benefit to nearby house owners. Trees do not reduce noise but look good. Unless maintained in the long term it is a short term solution for a minimal/small issue. Using a suitable mix of native species. V. much needed as prevailing wind is from w/sw. Visually good - but trees do not stop noise impact. We are in danger of being part of Taunton. We can hear the motorway traffic constantly. Well over due! Why build adjacent to motorways in the first place? Why have developers been given a free hand to build wherever they want to, against the wishes of villagers. It is a disgrace. Something is very wrong. Why is this not already in place?? Will obscure views. Yes if planted on noise attenuation bunds or won't reduce noise? You can hear traffic since the trees were massacred! You just get used to the noise.

Q17 – HOW NP COULD SUPPORT EXISTING OR NEW EMPLOYMENT PROVISION

COMMENTS FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY (E.G. THOSE ANSWERING ‘YES’ TO Q19) Encourage the provision of facilities listed above, which would hopefully match skillsets and promote employment of Parishioners. How can you make sure local people use this planned development? Don't just think about industrial - what about agricultural and traditional trades? Low cost industrial buildings. With proposed commercial area accessed from relief road this is sufficient [‘Not at all’ NP development\ Taunton should be our main employment provision so provide better transport links via buses. [‘Not at all’ NP development]

Specific locations The facility at Mill Lane (old paper mill site) is there so it should be used to its maximum. Use of existing sites in Mill Lane etc. Employment is always important to any community i.e. small units Mill Lane. Develop Creech Paper Mill. Development of existing industrial area in Mill Lane. Possibly develop Mill Lane industrial estate. Encourage the van/car sales business in the centre of the village to relocate to a commercial area to provide a village centre for residents. Endorse the development of business park on the site of Langaller Manor Farm.

Availability of land/type of businesses Using spaces already designated for commercial business development and encouraging links with local schools. Areas close to the motorway (e.g. E,F,G) should be earmarked for buses/light industrial use/ leisure. On the commercial site off the relief road. Low cost industrial units for rental/purchase. More light industrial and high-tech business premises should be encouraged. Providing small workshops/office spaces + high speed broadband. Provision of starter units, light industrial / office space. Designated small industrial estate. SME's. Small artisan workshops. No large companies with high workforce numbers. Small businesses but not commuter jobs. Employment land for small business units and shops/coffee shops. Development on new A358 could involve small businesses for local entrepreneurship. CSM Parish should remain as rural as possible. Small one off individual businesses that don't impact on traffic congestion are fine. For local small businesses. Surrounded by local agricultural and crafts. A farm and craft shop that sells & promotes local produce. Cafe, community centre, studio space. Having a cafe (good for visiting tourists) and a small restaurant / takeaway. Would certainly appreciate shops within the new builds.

Corner shop/cafe. Youth club. Sports facilities/clubs. Garage with petrol needed. Provide opportunities for high technology companies e.g. Siemens/Honda/Nuclear to locate here.

Access & transport Improve access to the industrial estate, and better road surface where units are located. Better signposting of businesses, improved access and parking. Easy access to Taunton. More buses to enable more commuters into Taunton. Roads, footpaths, and cycle ways would need to be improved and safer.

Broadband By ensuring fibre broadband available to all households.

Generally Encouraging businesses to stay in the locality. Work for people in area should be encouraged. As more housing being build more jobs local can put money back into the area. Improving and adding local facilities for the growth of Creech will provide jobs for local employment. By employing people in service industries and new businesses. As long as the commercial activity is not disruptive to the residents nearby. Only if noise pollution and only low traffic/vehicles. Consider the current villagers-support satellite services for the elderly/impaired. Plenty of commercial areas in the b/water, n/petherton and Taunton area.

Not at all It is already proven with new mixed use development that employers aren't interested in setting up business so why keep encouraging it. Improved A358 connection to M5 will improve links to Exeter and Bristol. Shops, health centre i.e. employment within local amenities, not new industry. Shops, cafe - CSM is not big enough to include any commercial development, no more HGV's and vans. There are too many commercial vehicles travelling through CSM. I don't believe the roads are sufficient to support more industry. Taunton should be our main employment provision so provide better transport links via buses. Improve public transport access. Taunton and Bridgwater are not that far to go for employment. One or two new businesses e.g. a cafe/takeaway would be ok but not industrial or commercial parks. Access to mill should be improved. Villages are for living and rural life, towns and business parks are for commercial use and commerce. I am very upset that our village and the surrounding villages have been destroyed by all the new houses built are we threatened with an industrial estate as well?

Q18 – MOST USEFUL BUSINESS WORKSPACE

Another pub would be good. As village pub is sub-standard. New pub. Possibly units like at Proctors Farm that look nice and would bring interesting local, small businesses to the village. A local shop, food provisions. Another hairdresser, beautician. Café. New Aldi, possibly a local shop for new builds. Takeaway. Retail, cafe (as in N Curry). Retail. Seed swaps, plant swaps, nearly new sales, local food sales, community farm? A possibility. Rural industrial support (e.g. blacksmiths). Whatever is needed. Most of these are already covered by the Mill business park and opposite next to the railway bridge. Where! Near the old mill? Unsure (4)

Not support development for businesses I would oppose manufacturing/ industrial/ business None (22) none - the Parishes need to be kept 'rural' None at all. There is no room. Scrap plans for industrial estate this side of motorway by J25 None necessary - Taunton has sufficient space in the pipeline

Q20 – NEED FOR ADDITIONAL WORKSPACE OUTSIDE THE HOME IN NEXT 5 YEARS

Current Parish businesses Office plus parking. Security. Community green space to run community activities for fitness and health fitness for all ages. Yes, within the Parish. Possibly a small, light industrial unit. Lock up for tools.

Don’t current run a business in the Parish Dance studio, wellbeing rooms. Want locally need office space and unit to store stock There isn't enough space so we'll have to move. Outside the Parish office space required. We plan to move away from the district before it is overcrowded, the house prices destroyed and the roads grid locked. The level of noise and traffic is increasing at an alarming rate. Provide proper infrastructure for existing buildings and population e.g. a new primary school to replace porter- cabins [sic] and jerry built temporary constructions.

Should not be allowed to run a business from home if it entails vehicles parked on road or lorries on drives & if business makes a noise. My employers may appreciate low rent offices with easy transport links and car parking.

Q21 – ADEQUACY OF BROADBAND

Adsborough Sometimes erratic or slow.

Charlton 0.2MB! Utterly useless. Very, very slow.

Combe Superfast broadband isn't really that fast in Combe!

Ham Speed slow 5 mb with frequent drop outs. 2mgb download. Ham is too far away from the nearest street cabinet to benefit from super-fast broadband. There are too many service interruptions and at peak times performance dips considerably. Ham has copper and no fibre. Most have very poor speeds. Do not have fibre optic. Unreliable and slow. Reliability issues and too slow. Speed + reliability poor. In Ham, very poor speed. Too slow, downloads take forever.

Langaller Internet connection always failing.

Creech Heathfield For the future of the community somebody please sort this out! Broadband connection is hopeless i.e. download speed 0.57mb upload speed 0.78mb, at times cannot even get into the internet!! But we still have to pay the same (disgusted). 1 Meg. We now stream broadband from Walford cross by radio wave. Poor reliability of phone, broadband and mobile signal (on all networks) Poor speeds 1-2 mb download and less than 1mb upload both speeds need to improve significantly . Also electric connection is poor from the grid. Speed 1-8 MB 2 mb. Fast broadband seems to have missed Creech Heathfield. 2 mb. Poor reliability. Typical speed 2.8mb and very unreliable in Charlton Rd CSM.

Because of copper wiring we cannot get super-fast broadband. Although the majority of the village can but Creech Heathfield cannot. Creech Heathfield (Crown Lane/Kendal Close) doesn't have superfast broadband but Creech St Michael down the road does! Very poor! No speed in Hamlet Creech Heathfield. We don't have fibre broadband doesn't work. Most of time BT said not enough people in hamlet to justify it. Reliability. Speed and reliability is not as good as fibre optic broadband in Taunton. Speed and reliability. Charham Road needs fibre. Very slow and poor reliability. Too slow and keeps cutting out. Poor connection speed and buffering. There is no BT Internet. What we have is very slow and unreliable. As we pay extra for superfast each month - basic speed is rubbish! Very low speeds. No access to fibre and I can get no information from anybody as when it might be available. Low speed (2) SLOW. Very slow. Very slow to connect. Very very slow.

Creech St Michael Speed is totally inadequate for home and business. Speed is appalling at home and at work in Creech always buffering. I sometimes work from home and contact with the office on broadband is/can be very slow. Fibre access is needed to all properties with a capacity upgrade at Henlade exchange (or a new exchange north of CSM). We were told we could not have broadband so have to spend a lot per month for fibre optics. Speed extremely slow, and lose connection quite regularly. Not enough room in cabinet for super-fast broadband. Have registered interest. Village is on copper wire and needs upgrading to fibre. Not enough link to super fibre. It is adequate, but fibre optics cables should connect it every time not just green boxes. Fibre capacity poor. Not upgraded, no fibre optic, not enough jumpers on the line not enough choice. Slow speed despite optic broadband 3-6. Typical speed 1.5mb. Typical speed 5mb. Slightly increased - used to be 1mb! Current speed about 15mbs. Speed <3 gbs V. variable. Can be slow even with fibre optic. Speed. (13) Speed not "up to speed, too slow, another multi use games area. Very slow at peak times.

Speed still lagging behind, more variety i.e. Virgin. Speed-would like fibre optic-Virgin to be available. Speed is often very slow. Download speed. Speed and reliability. (15) Speed and background problems. Slow internet-no access after 3.30pm on many days. Speed and reliability - service worse at certain times of the day. Very slow and frequent disconnection. Slow speeds, loss of connectivity. Ͼͩ ̬͟ ̾͌͟ΐ ϑͅϩ ϩ͌ϭ̪ͩ͟ͅ ϑ̾ΐϑΖ͟ ΐ̧̻͌͛ Slow speed a frequent freezing. Constantly dips in and out. Broadband keeps dropping off/freezing. Constantly kicked 'out of Wi-Fi' - poor signal. Lose signal frequently! Quite slow. It regularly cuts out altogether. It drops out too frequently. Reliability is poor - very intermittent. Reliability. (5) TV on demand can be a problem. Speed of broadband has reduced over the 5 years I have lived in the village. Can be patchy. Just a bit slow. Speed could be better. (2) It could always be faster. Speed is acceptable but over time will become unacceptable. Speed is more or less ok now but worries not fit for future developments. Speed - not prepared to pay for faster broadband. Phone signal more of an issue!! It takes too long to get installed on new building estates. The developers and BT need to plan ahead sooner to ensure conductors are laid. We waited 8 months to have broadband installed on DWH site and a phoneline. Lack of high speed fibre to new builds from day one.

Q22 – YOUNG PEOPLE

Something in Creech Heathfield! We just moved here and like the recreation ground. Our children have already played there a lot. All weather pitches. All weather sports facilities. Anything that gets them outside. A cycle track similar to 'Torbay Velopark'. BMX track.

Skate park/ pavilion and cafe on the recreation ground. Tennis court (3) Climbing wall or facilities. Climbing wall. Better internet, better schools. Concrete table tennis in park? Very cheap and low maintenance. CSM football/club. Green space. Outdoor exercise equipment. Outdoor pool. Play facilities - for under 10s, more for pre-schoolers. Rowing on river/canal. Something set up to support use of river and canal. Rowing clubs, kayaking club, soft play, golf pitch and putt driving range nets, tennis courts/ badminton. Scout hut. Clubs at village hall? Small Cinema. Sports activities aimed at girls as well as boys. Expand on TME track. The TME Track is a waste of valuable leisure land, used by people out of the village and it runs so rarely. Use this land for something that is available all year around. The kids need more to do! Much more facilities for kids are needed. Currently village underachieving in facilities. D̪͌ͩͅ ̩ϑΏϭ ϑͅΖ ̬ͅ household but suggest those ticked would benefit all children in CSM. Improved public transport to other areas. Youth club - already have several. These alternative facilities will create a place for groups of young people to gather and poss cause damage / nuisance to residents living nearby. They are all available in and around the area. Ensuring these are strong before introducing new ones is paramount. ANYTHING!! Please stop them gathering & dealing drugs at the rec ground. Ask the young people!! Ask them. Bike/scooter ramp - some get so stupid with this. We should acknowledge the support given to young people by Zia Boohsh church. Stocks.

Q23 – RENEWABLE RESOURCES

Recycling Better signposting of recycling facilities. Additional recycling - where do you mean? Additional kerbside recycling in established housing areas hence reducing trips to the tip - all plastic containers, cartons etc.

Recycling facilities also in existing areas. Recycling facilities could encourage fly-tipping and loads of rubbish - do not allow this. Free garden waste collection. Community biomass digester.

Rainwater harvesting The Dutch should be used as a great example of sustainable housing. All new development just use up more concrete, less drainage for rainfall-backwards thinking! Rainwater harvesting: Could this be encouraged on existing buildings?

Hydro Harvesting of water power on River Tone. What about using the river? Or is it not fast enough to drive a turbine that would be useful? More power from marine tidal turbines in Atlantic coastal areas and replace. Need to think about water energy.

Solar Solar panels - if we have any fields left. ̩̓Ζ ϩ̪͌ͩͅ ϑ̾̾ ̩ͩϭ ͅϭΐ Ϟ΄̬̾ϩ̬̟͟ͅ ̩ϑΏϭ ̩ͩϭ̈́ ͛͌͌Ϸ͟ ̈́ϑϩϭ ΄͘ ͌Ϸ ͌̾͟ϑ͛ ͘ϑͅϭ̾͟ ̬ͩ͟ͅϭϑϩ ͌Ϸ ̬ͩ̾ϭ͟ ϑͅϩ ͩhen panels? Solar panels on houses.

Wind Wind Turbine - definitely no! Much rather wind turbines and solar fields than development!

Heat Heat exchange pumps on new builds.

Carbon capture More tree planting - a small forest on Field G.

Generally Another school. All possible eco solutions. All that could be installed to make as a renewable energy village - go for it! We all can be guilty of nimby!? More dog bins! More dog waste collecting bins.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ATTACHED TO SURVEY

̳̩ϭ Ϟ΄̬̾ϩϭ͛͟ ͟ϭϭ̈́ Ώϭ͛Ζ ̟͌͌ϩ ϑͩ Ϟ΄̬̾ϩ̬̟ͅ ͅϭΐ ̩͌΄̬̟͟ͅ Ϟ΄ͩ ̩̩ͩϭΖ̪ ϩ͌ ͌ͩͅ Ϟ̩͌ͩϭ͛ ϑϞ͌΄ͩ ̩ͩϭ ̬̈́͘ϑϟͩ ͌ͅ ̩ͩϭ ϭΕ̬̬̟ͩ͟ͅ services. The extra traffic on the very dangerous roads with very Ϟ̬̾ͅϩ Ϟϭͅϩ̧͟ Ͼ̪ͩ͟ ϑͅ ϑϟϟ̬ϩϭͩͅ ΐϑ̬̬̟ͩͅ ͩ͌ ̩ϑ͘͘ϭ̧ͅ D̪͌ͩͅ ̩ͩϭΖ ͛ϭϑ̬̾͟ϭ ̩ͩϑͩ ̈́͌͛ϭ ̩ousing means more traffic on our roads. Please get someone to make more safety measures, it is such a worry to us all and is now essential. When I used to visit Creech in the 1930s the village was spick and span. I look now upon the weeds growing from every kerbside and ask is this progress? There are several sapling trees growing between the canal bridge wall and the road, how long before they force the wall to collapse into the canal? Imagine the chaos of no through road into the village. I think the state of the verges gives a very poor impression of our village. [On attached sheet] I enclose the survey but much of it has been ignored as living in Adsborough on the other side of the A38 we do not have cause to visit CSM and it is doubtless the same for those living in Combe. It is interesting to see the map enclosed did not even cover those places. No-one from the PC ever seems to visit this side of the A38 as they would observe road signs obliterated by overgrown hedges. Overhanging trees that the bus once hit. A road ̟΄̾̾ϭΖ ͌ͅ ̩ͩϭ !ϯ8 ΐ̬̩ͩ ϭϮ̮ ΐϭϭϩ͟ ̟͛͌ΐ̬̟ͅ ͌΄ͩ ͌Ϸ ̧̬ͩ ϶͛ϑ͟͟ ϭϮ̮ ̩̬̟̩ ͌ͅ ̩ͩϭ Ώϭ̟͛ϭ ̾ϭϑϩ̬̟ͅ ͩ͌ ̩ͩϭ ̳ϑ΄ͩ͌ͅͅ Ϟ΄͟ ͩ͌͘͟ ϭͩϟ̧ We no longer receive the Parish magazine. The Parish notice board still displays the June 6th minutes in spite of the face that there was a meeting on 4th ̉΄̾Ζ ϑͅϩ ̈́ϑΖϞϭ ͌ͅ ̬ͅ !΄̟΄̧ͩ͟ Ͼͩ ϑ̾̾ ϑϩϩ͟ ΄͘ ͩ͌ ̩ͩϭ Ϸϑϟϭ ̩ͩϑͩ ΐϭ ϑ͛ϭ ̬ͅ ͌ͅ ̈́ϑ̪͟ͅ land. And a portion of our Council Tax goes to the CSM PC. [On attached sheet] Sorry to disappoint but these two despairing residents will not complete your latest survey. All housing developments are decided at National Government level, then by the local government regardless of any concerns village residents put forward. This is one and other surveys in times past are a waste of time and taxpayers money. Furthermore the map you enclose is not up to date. It does not show the extent of the developments already underway and others that are awaiting the diggers. We have lived in CSM since 1976. No amount of box ticking will halt the destruction of the quiet village life once enjoyed here. Incidentally, the one thing this village needs desperately is the restoration of the bus service that was scrapped two years ago. From two senior citizens.

Appendix 3 – Full survey results summary tables

1. Which of the following characteristics are important to you about living in Creech St Michael (CSM) Parish? (please tick one box on each row indicating the level of importance to you) Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely Rating Response Answer Options important important important important important Average Count Easy access to the countryside 4 14 60 206 188 4.19 472 Community facilities (e.g. village hall, pub, churches, school, pre-school, shop) 14 19 83 158 198 4.07 472 The sense of community 15 35 128 200 86 3.66 464 Close to Taunton 25 32 130 213 77 3.60 477 Village activities/community groups 22 67 148 155 73 3.41 465 Easy access to M5 33 69 160 142 68 3.30 472 Other (please tell us) 45 answered question 486 skipped question 7

2. What concerns, if any, do you have about the developments planned for CSM Parish? (tick any that apply)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Traffic congestion 87.7% 429 Loss of green space 86.1% 421 Pressure on health services 65.8% 322 Lack of parking 55.0% 269 Pressure on school places 53.2% 260 Increased road traffic accidents 53.0% 259 Impact on sense of community 46.4% 227 Increased risk of flooding 45.4% 222 Increase in crime 40.7% 199 Inadequate sports and leisure facilities 28.0% 137 Houses not suitable for needs of community 27.6% 135 Poor design 23.7% 116 Reduced property prices 20.7% 101 None 0.4% 2 Other (please tell us) 10.6% 52 answered question 489 skipped question 4

3. How would you like CSM Parish to be described in 20 years time? (tick any that apply)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Safe 81.0% 393 Friendly 80.6% 391 Rural 72.6% 352 Peaceful 71.8% 348 Green 65.6% 318 Beautiful 45.4% 220 Sustainable 32.4% 157 Prosperous 24.1% 117 Vibrant 19.4% 94 Distinctive 14.4% 70 Other (please tell us) 6.6% 32 answered question 485 skipped question 8

4. What are the main traffic issues in the Parish currently which affect you? (tick any that apply)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Volume of traffic 75.9% 366 Speed of traffic 65.6% 316 HGV traffic 48.5% 234 Parking 47.7% 230 Safety 46.9% 226 Traffic noise 34.2% 165 Junction visibility (please tell us location below) 28.6% 138 A358/A303 dualling 26.8% 129 Creech Castle junction 26.6% 128 Air quality 24.3% 117 Accidents 15.4% 74 Verge damage 14.9% 72 Other (please tell us) 36.1% 174 answered question 482 skipped question 11

5. What do you think are the best ways to reduce traffic problems? (tick any that apply)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

More frequent bus services 64.9% 299 20 mph limit 50.1% 231 Physical traffic calming measures 37.1% 171 Widening of pavements 25.4% 117 Footbridge over railway 21.7% 100 Traffic lights 8.2% 38 Please tell us the best location for any of these 192

answered question 461 skipped question 32

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

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Yes 68.0% 296 No 32.0% 139 answered question 435 skipped question 58

7. Which pedestrian and cycle routes should be considered around the Parish? (Please see map below and tick boxes below that apply) Definitely Probably Probably Definitely Don 't Rating Response Answer Options do not do not consider consider know Average Count consider consider Cycle lane: Hyde Lane to access Heathfield School and planned new sporting facilities in West 7 14 57 354 16 1.65 448 Monkton Parish (see map - A) Cycle lane: linking Creech St Michael village and Creech Heathfield (see map - B) 23 56 93 208 44 0.96 424 Additional pedestrian bridge over the canal by Crufts Meadow and Larkfleet development (see 40 49 90 154 68 0.67 401 map - C) Pedestrian footbridge by railway bridge? (see map - D) 38 72 93 144 58 0.58 405 Road crossing by Bell Inn 49 64 107 187 22 0.74 429 Road crossing on Hyde Lane 36 62 96 163 50 0.71 407 Virtual footpaths (please state where below) 54 38 21 57 101 -0.04 271 Please tell us your suggestions for a virtual footpath location 86 answered question 476 skipped question 17

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

Answer Options Response Count

87 answered question 87 skipped question 406

9. How important to you, individually or as a household, are the following Parish facilities? (please tick boxes below that apply) Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely Rating Response Answer Options important important important important important Average Count Village Hall 20 80 131 138 106 4.46 475 Primary School 127 21 42 95 166 4.45 451 Pubs (The Bell Inn and The Maypole) 69 79 126 114 79 4.40 467 Recreation field and play area (CSM village) 30 46 61 152 174 3.85 463 Pavilion 89 65 124 75 75 3.48 428 Village shop 4 8 45 135 294 3.34 486 Medical centre 17 12 31 97 327 3.20 484 Pharmacy 18 10 32 121 301 3.12 482 Pre-school 139 40 63 81 122 3.06 445 ̩̬̾ϩ͛ϭ̪͟ͅ ϟϭͩ͛ͅϭ 153 56 91 62 79 3.02 441 Churches 75 68 128 86 113 2.96 470 Vets 97 61 104 101 91 2.78 454 Hairdressers (CSM and Creech Heathfield) 122 77 110 89 66 2.68 464 Undertakers 137 100 133 49 32 2.42 451 Taunton Model Engineers (TME) 171 87 104 43 35 2.31 440 Karebears Childcare 186 62 91 62 36 2.28 437 Do you think improvements are needed to any existing recreational facilities? If so, please tell us 116 answered question 492 skipped question 1

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? (tick any that apply)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Additional shops, within the new development 63.6% 300 Youth Club 50.4% 238 Café 47.7% 225 Sporting facilities 38.6% 182 Slipway into the canal for kayaks etc 36.7% 173 Takeaway 35.6% 168 Additional car parking by the canal 29.0% 137 Additional allotment plots 24.6% 116 None 6.1% 29 Other (please tell us) 10.2% 48 answered question 472 skipped question 21

11. Please tell us you preferred location for any of these facilities

Answer Options Response Count

118 answered question 118 skipped question 375

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? Please tell us below

Answer Options Response Count

237 answered question 237 skipped question 256

13. What kind of housing do you think is needed most in the Parish? (please tick boxes below that apply) Too many About Need a Need a Rating Response Answer Options already right few more lot more Average Count Accessible housing (tailored design for disabled people) 32 108 176 54 0.30 370 Sheltered housing (for older or disabled people) 36 128 161 66 0.24 391 Eco friendly housing 42 121 98 85 0.18 346 Low cost / starter homes (for purchase) 45 158 133 55 0.03 391 Retirement housing 85 104 134 75 -0.01 398 Affordable housing (for local people who cannot afford to buy or rent on the open market) 83 125 118 77 -0.05 403 Bungalows 69 163 103 47 -0.27 382 Single occupancy housing 76 145 105 29 -0.38 355 Family housing 98 155 91 35 -0.50 379 Rented accommodation 90 182 69 19 -0.71 360 Flats 82 162 58 8 -0.81 310 Luxury housing 135 162 53 9 -1.01 359 answered question 448 skipped question 45

14. Which of the following historic buildings and features are important to you? (tick any that apply)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

̧̭ͩ ̬̓ϟ̩ϑϭ̪̾͟ ϟ̩΄͛ϟ̩ 79.8% 375 Post boxes 63.6% 299 Historic bridges 62.3% 293 War memorial 61.9% 291 Footbridge at Ham weir 50.9% 239 Pill boxes 46.0% 216 Viaduct 39.6% 186 Metal road finger posts 37.4% 176 Phone boxes 28.1% 132 None 5.3% 25 Are there any building/locations that you would like to see improved? 59

answered question 470 skipped question 23

15. What is important to you in the design of new build housing? (tick any that apply)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Green space between houses 72.3% 342 In keeping with traditional cottage/house style 42.9% 203 Single or two storey to fit with existing housing 36.8% 174 A mix of designs within a new development 34.5% 163 None ̓ ϩ̪͌ͩͅ ͟΄͌͛ͩ͘͘ ͅϭΐ ̩͌΄̬̟͟ͅ 29.6% 140 Eco-style design 26.0% 123 Modern design 6.6% 31 Other (please tell us) 14.2% 67 answered question 473 skipped question 20

16. In your opinion which of these areas should be protected for future generations or from development? (tick any that apply - see map below)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

School playing field 90.2% 435 Community recreation field and adjacent fields (see map ̓ E) 87.8% 423 Fields in between canal and railway 81.5% 393 Clear space between the villages within CSM Parish 80.7% 389 Clear space between CSM Parish and other neighbouring Parishes 78.8% 380 Fields at rear of West view (see map - F) 77.6% 374 Fields north of motorway, Langaller Farm and Manor Farm (see map - G) 62.4% 301 Area by The Bell Inn 57.1% 275 Other (please tell us) 10.2% 49 answered question 482 skipped question 11

17. Do you agree with the Parish Council’s proposal to screen sections of the motorway with trees and shrubs to reduce noise pollution?

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Yes 88.0% 418 No 4.0% 19 Unsure 8.0% 38 Comments (please tell us) 71 answered question 475 skipped question 18

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

Not at all Unlikely Unsure Probably Definitely Rating Average Response Count

84 31 87 146 122 0.41 470 Please tell us how you believe the Neighbourhood Plan could support existing or new employment provision 63 answered question 470 skipped question 23

19. What kind of workspace do you think would be most useful to provide in the Parish? (tick any that apply)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Business incubation units (rentable, temporary office or industrial space for new business start- 46.0% 190 ups) Leisure 43.6% 180 Restaurants/Food 43.3% 179 Light industrial 33.4% 138 Retail 20.8% 86 Manufacturing 9.2% 38 Other (please tell us) 10.7% 44 answered question 413 skipped question 80

20. Do you run a business in commercial premises in the Parish or from your home?

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

No 91.6% 434 Yes 8.4% 40 answered question 474 skipped question 19

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

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

No 97.4% 453 Yes 2.6% 12 Please tell us whether you will be looking within the Parish and the type of provision you will need: 11 answered question 465 skipped question 28

22. How adequate is your Broadband connection for you and your household? (please tick boxes below that apply) No Totally Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely Rating Response Answer Options Broadband inadequate inadequate adequate adequate adequate Average Count Business needs 31 43 49 67 53 15 2.44 258 Educational needs 22 45 40 75 69 20 2.68 271 Social needs 20 61 81 125 126 27 2.81 440 If you are not satisfied with this, please tell us why (e.g. typical speed, reliability etc.) 125 answered question 457 skipped question 36

23. What facilities would be useful to benefit young people and children in our community? (tick any that apply)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Youth club 71.5% 321 Sports activities 70.8% 318 Cycle/running track 57.9% 260 Woodland adventure area 57.0% 256 Play facilities 53.2% 239 Bike/scooter ramp 29.6% 133 Other (please tell us) 8.9% 40 answered question 449 skipped question 44

24. Which of the following would you like to see in the Parish? (tick any that apply)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Rainwater harvesting on new buildings 59.0% 270 Solar panels on public buildings 43.9% 201 Additional recycling facilities in the new housing area 42.8% 196 PV thermal and voltaic cells on new buildings 24.7% 113 None 20.3% 93 Wind turbines 13.5% 62 Solar panel arrays in fields 6.8% 31 Other (please tell us) 5.5% 25 answered question 458 skipped question 35

25. Which settlement are you from?

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Adsborough 1.8% 9 Charlton 0.8% 4 Combe 0.4% 2 Creech Heathfield 14.1% 69 Creech St Michael 78.5% 383 Ham 3.5% 17 Langaller 0.4% 2 Walford 0.6% 3 Other (please tell us) 1 answered question 488 skipped question 5

26. How long have you lived in the Parish?

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

0-4 years 21.9% 106 5-10 years 15.5% 75 11-20 years 15.9% 77 More than 20 years 46.7% 226 answered question 484 skipped question 9

27. Please indicate the number of people in each age group living in your household (please place a number in the appropriate boxes)

Answer Options Response Average Response Total Response Count

0-4 years 1.27 57 45 5-10 years 1.34 75 56 11-18 years 1.53 118 77 19-24 years 1.22 72 59 25-44 years 1.54 213 138 45-64 years 1.53 334 218 65-74 years 1.36 179 132 75+ years 1.26 131 104 answered question 456 skipped question 37

28. Please tick at least one if providing your details

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Please enter me for the Prize Draw (open to 18 years and over only) 90.7% 294 I would like to be kept in touch with the project 69.8% 226 I would like to join the working group 12.3% 40 answered question 324 skipped question 169

29. Please provide your details below:

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Name 98.3% 344 Address 97.1% 340 Postcode 96.9% 339 Telephone 80.3% 281 Email 67.4% 236 answered question 350 skipped question 143

Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Plan

Primary School Consultation

Conducted by The Community Council for Somerset January 2016.

Telephone 01823 331222 I Email [email protected] http://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

© 2015 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.

Primary School Consultation

The Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Plan group commissioned CCS to carry out a consultation with the children at the Creech St Michael Primary School. The group had already carried out an extensive consultation through a household questionnaire which was delivered to all homes in the parishes. This additional piece of research was carried out to ensure all parts of this community were involved in the process and that their views, ideas and ambitions for their community can be included in the plan.

How did we do it?

To capture a snapshot of the views of the young people it was decided that it would be most effective to work through the school as this is inclusive, nearly all young people will be included as opposed to out of school activities which would attract different groups of young people with different issues/concerns/views.

The consultation was carried out in each of the classes in the school from Reception to Year 6 by the teachers or teaching assistants.

We used a series of questions which were given to each young person consulted. These are the questions we used, each question had a list of possible options to guide the group:

1. What do you like about living in Creech St Michael parish? Living near friends It’s a friendly place Close to the countryside Close to Taunton Community facilities (village hall, churches, school, pre-school, shop, park) Other

2. What don’t you like about living in Creech St Michael parish? Too much traffic Hard to cycle or walk around the village Not enough sports and leisure facilities Unfriendly Other

3. What would you like to see here in the future? Outdoor sports facilities – football pitches rugby pitches, cricket pitches, tennis courts, skate park Indoor sports/leisure space – gymnastics, dance, drama, Slipway into the canal for kayaks etc. Community orchard or allotments More cycle paths More play parks Youth club/cafe Shops Cafe

P a g e | 2 Other

4. What do you like to do in your free time?

5. How do you feel about walking or cycling to school? Do you feel safe? Yes/No Comments/mark danger spots on map of a parish

The Results

The results of the consultation were reviewed and analysed. From this we can see what are the main outcomes from the questions.

1. What do you like about living in Creech St Michael parish?

The key thing the children of all ages liked best about living in the parish was living near their friends, which was very closely followed by that fact that the parish is close to the countryside and their view that it is a friendly place to live.

2. What don’t you like about living in Creech St Michael parish? The main thing that the children said they didn’t like about living in the parish was not having enough sports and leisure facilities. This was very closely followed by the view that there was too much traffic which makes the parish a less pleasant place to live. This is reflected in the view of the a significant number of children that it is hard to cycle or walk around the parish.

3. What would you like to see here in the future? The most popular area of interest was around outdoor sports provision, in particular skate parks, football pitches, tennis courts. There was also a lot of interest in indoor sports and leisure space for gymnastics, dance and drama in particular. There was also a lot of interest in more cycle paths and community orchards/allotments from the younger children.

4. What do you like to do in your free time?

When asked about what they do in their free time the answers reflected to a great extent the answers to the question above – outdoor sports such as skateboarding, cycling and scooting as well as football, tennis. The older children in key stage two are taking part in more team sports such as hockey, cricket, rugby, football, netball. There are also children kayaking, climbing, swimming, trampolining and dancing.

5. How do you feel about walking or cycling to school? Do you feel safe? There were comments about there being too many cars driving too fast and also not enough footpaths for walking safely. Looking at the responses to this question it seems that the younger children feel safe walking and cycling around the parish but older ones do not in general feel as safe. This could be due to younger children doing this with adult supervision but older children might be travelling independently around the parish and so more aware of the traffic issues.

P a g e | 3

Conclusions

As you can see from these consultation results there are some main themes which the young people would like to be considered as part of the Neighbourhood Plan, these are:

1) The best things about living here are the access to the countryside and other green space including play parks and being part of a community and close to friends. 2) The most negative things about living here are traffic congestion and speed and the lack of suitable quality play equipment and space. 3) The young people are already participating in sports, and they are keen to remain active and take part in more sport and so want the facilities to do this. They are asking for provision for football, rugby, cricket, tennis, gymnastics, dance, cycling and skateboarding. 4) There is also a need for more cycle paths to help them to travel around the area safely and increase bike use. 5) The majority of young people consulted are keen to get involved in community orchards and growing vegetables.

P a g e | 4 Views of Young People at Consultation for Creech St Michael on 13 Feb 2017.

The session has provided some interesting data on the identified needs of the Young People of Creech St Michael. 12 YP attended ranging from 11 to 16 years old. 4 female, 8 male.

The points raised were as follows:

Q. What do you think is important to have in your community?

A. Youth Club, Pump Track, Area for younger people to use (separate to older Young People), Youth Council, Sense of Community, More Community events, Library access, Sports clubs/activities, Organised activities for 11-16y/o, Cycle Path.

The need for a voice of the Young People was expressed. This was consistent across the entire cohort.

Several suggested that age specific recreational areas may be useful.

Q. What do you think about where you live?

A. The YP were keen to express their contentment in general terms with their community, but addressed several areas that concerned them.

Older Young People are making the community spaces less appealing for the Younger cohort, smoking and drinking and possible drug use is deterring them from using the spaces set out for them.

Lack of clubs and activities in CSM, having to travel to Taunton for access to clubs and activities proves difficult and expensive. Those without daytime access to transport are going without.

There is a friendly attitude towards YP in CSM, they do feel like a part of the community.

Q. What would you like to see happen in the future?

A. Youth Centre/Club at least one night per week.

Creation of a Youth Council to enable the opinions of the younger generation to be expressed and heard in formal scenarios.

More clubs and sporting activities (other than football).

Gym equipment in park.

Speed cameras.

Cinema (outdoor).

Skate park/Pump track, and Safety measures for cyclists (lights, cycle paths).

Better Bus links to Taunton.

Alongside the survey we openly chatted with the group, gauging the views and opinions of the YP of CSM. They were very engaging and happy to share their views.

They all addressed needs pertaining to provision of a group that would enable them to create a Youth Voice within the community. Whether it was concerns about safety, drug use, development of play areas, activities and clubs, infrastructure etc, they were all keen to see a provision that would facilitate greater involvement in the community by their age group.

They were keen to express that they like living in CSM, and are keen to be involved in the community’s future.

It is clear that a Youth Club for 11-16 would be very advantageous, and would enable the Young People of Creech St Michael to feel more involved, have a greater say, and be even more productive in the community. The YP identified that there are targeted groups currently running, but no open access groups that can be accessed by all regardless of abilities or age.

Appendix C – Regulation 14 consultation responses

Appendix D – Further consultation responses

The Canal & River Trust (the Trust) is the charity that cares for 2,000 miles of canals and rivers across England and Wales. We are passionate believers in using the power of local waterways to transform places and enrich lives. We want to support local communities to secure and build on the multiple benefits that waterways bring, now and in the future.

We believe that by working together we can deliver living waterways that transform places and enrich the lives of local communities. We want to encourage and support local communities and town and parish councils to champion their waterways in the planning process.

We only own around 4% of the land adjacent to our waterways, therefore influencing developments on this land is essential to develop and protect the places that local communities value and to create the types of places that can allow us to achieve our vision. In speaking up for waterways, local communities can complement our role as a statutory consultee in the planning process.

Unfortunately, the Canal & River Trust were not aware of the Regulation 14 consultation on the Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Development Plan (CSM NH Plan) carried out in 8th December 2017 to 2nd February 2018. We have recently been made aware that this neighbourhood plan was in preparation following a consultation on the Housing Needs Survey and Green Wedge Policy. We therefore hope that the Parish Council will consider points raised below on the wider plan document at this time.

We are pleased to note that at 3.1.15 The community have identified the canal and towpath (note; it is not written as ‘tow path’) as being important. We note that various sections within the plan, the Bridgwater & Taunton canal is 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, including the (filled) junction with the Bridgwater & Taunton Canal. A raised embankment leading south from the village, a ruined aqueduct that would have carried the canal over the River Tone and the abutments of a second aqueduct 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 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. The document can be found here.

We note that the canal is valued as it runs through the parish, however to maximise the benefits the canal can bring to the area there is a need for waterway proofing of planning policy at the neighbourhood plan level to unlock the economic, environmental and social benefits which could be offered by the canal.

Policy CSM1 – cycle and footpath provision, suggests that new development must demonstrate the enhancement of the existing walking and cycling network, including railway and canal bridges. We suggest that the canal towpath is included in this section, not just bridges over the canal as being in need of enhancement as a result of new development.

In the past the Trust has suggested that new development in the parish should better integrate land and water, open up access to, from and along the waterway and explore the added value and use of water space. It was suggested that new development should link to the canal towpath and make a contribution towards towpath improvement, but this was not supported at the time.

We note a new bridge is suggested linking Larkfleet to the canal. Any new bridge over the canal will need the agreement of the Canal & River Trust as owner of the canal and will need to be in accordance with the details provided in our code of practice for works adjacent to a waterway’. The Trust will also need 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 Neighbourhood Plan suggests public realm improvements for the village centre using CIL receipts under policy CSM 7 and elsewhere, at section 9.2 it suggests a canal enhancement scheme and the protection of its setting and surrounding environment. It is suggested that the Parish Council will lead on this. We would suggest that the Trust and Parish council consider whether there are opportunities to encourage and enhance the use, enjoyment and setting of the canal and perhaps CIL receipts could be used for this type of improvement too? We can find no reference to seeking S106 contributions within the plan area.

With relation to the Green wedge consultation it appears that the land adjacent to the canal towpath and running to the railway is currently considered to be green space under CSM 12 but it is now proposed to designate it as a green wedge under policy CSM 13. If this is the case should it now be removed from policy CSM 12?

We would welcome the opportunity to come to talk to the Parish Council regarding both the plan, their aspirations for the canal and ways to better promote it within the neighbourhood plan. Please contact me using the details below if that would be of interest?

WYG Hawkridge House Chelston Business Park Wellington Somerset TA21 8YA

By email only to: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter provides Gladman Developments Ltd (Gladman) representations in response to the second consultation on the draft version of the Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Plan (CSMNP) under Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.

Gladman have previously provided a response to the first Regulation 14 consultation and wish for this letter to be considered alongside our earlier submission. This letter seeks to highlight the issues with the plan and the newly available evidence base as currently presented and its relationship with national and local planning policy.

Gladman would like to offer their assistance in the preparation of the neighbourhood plan for the submission version of the neighbourhood plan and invite the Parish Council to get in touch regarding this.

Legal Requirements

Before a neighbourhood plan can proceed to referendum it must be tested against a set of basic conditions set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4b of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The basic conditions that the CSMNP must meet are as follows:

(a) Having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it is appropriate to make the order. (d) The making of the order contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. (e) The making of the order is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area). (f) The making of the order does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations.

National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. In doing so it sets out the requirements for the preparation of neighbourhood

plans to be in conformity with the strategic priorities for the wider area and the role in which they play in delivering sustainable development to meet development needs.

At the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread through both plan-making and decision-taking. For plan-making this means that plan makers should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area and Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change. This requirement is applicable to neighbourhood plans.

The recent Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) updates make clear that neighbourhood plans should conform to national policy requirements and take account the latest and most up-to-date evidence of housing needs in order to assist the Council in delivering sustainable development, a neighbourhood plan basic condition.

The application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development will have implications for how communities engage with neighbourhood planning. Paragraph 16 of the Framework makes clear that Qualifying Bodies preparing neighbourhood plans should develop plans that support strategic development needs set out in Local Plans, including policies for housing development and plan positively to support local development.

Paragraph 17 further makes clear that neighbourhood plans should set out a clear and positive vision for the future of the area and policies contained in those plans should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency. Neighbourhood plans should seek to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, jobs and thriving local places that the country needs, whilst responding positively to the wider opportunities for growth.

Paragraph 184 of the Framework makes clear that local planning authorities will need to clearly set out their strategic policies to ensure that an up-to-date Local Plan is in place as quickly as possible. The Neighbourhood Plan should ensure that it is aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider area and plan positively to support the delivery of sustainable growth opportunities.

Planning Practice Guidance

It is clear from the requirements of the Framework that neighbourhood plans should be prepared in conformity with the strategic requirements for the wider area as confirmed in an adopted development plan. The requirements of the Framework have now been supplemented by the publication of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

On 11th February 2016, the Secretary of State (SoS) published a series of updates to the neighbourhood planning chapter of the PPG. In summary, these update a number of component parts of the evidence base that are required to support an emerging neighbourhood plan.

On 19th May 2016, the Secretary of State published a further set of updates to the neighbourhood planning PPG. These updates provide further clarity on what measures a qualifying body should take to review the contents of a neighbourhood plan where the evidence base for the plan policy becomes less robust. As such it is considered that where a qualifying body intends to undertake a review of the neighbourhood plan, it should include a policy relating to this intention which includes a detailed explanation outlining the qualifying bodies anticipated timescales in this regard.

Further, the PPG makes clear that neighbourhood plans should not contain policies restricting housing development in settlements or preventing other settlements from being expanded.

Relationship to Local Plan

To meet the requirements of the Framework and the Neighbourhood Plan Basic Conditions, neighbourhood plans should be prepared to conform to the strategic policy requirements set out in the adopted Development Plan.

The current Development Plan relevant to the preparation of the CSMNP consists of the Taunton Deane Core Strategy which was adopted in September 2012 and covers the period from 2011 to 2028 and the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (SADMP) which was adopted by Taunton Deane Borough Council in December 2016.

Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy sets out the strategic approach to housing provision in Taunton Borough and states that the Council will seek to maintain a flexible supply of housing making provision for at least 17,000 new homes over the period 2008-2028.

The adopted Core Strategy, at policy SS1 Monkton Heathfield, allocates an area to the north east of Taunton for delivery of 4,500 new dwellings, new and improved infrastructure and community facilities. Approximately 45% of the proposed allocation is located within the defined Creech St Michael neighbourhood plan area. It is considered essential that the policies set out within the CSMNP are considered to be in full conformity with policy SS1 Monkton Heathfield and indeed the adopted Core Strategy as a whole.

Work on a new local plan which will bring together policies from the existing local plan, Taunton Town Centre Area Action Plan, Core Strategy and Site Allocations and Development Management Plan is now underway. Accordingly, the CSMNP must ensure that it allows for sufficient flexibility to assist Taunton Deane Borough in meeting its objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing.

Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Plan

This section highlights the key issues that Gladman would like to raise with regards to the evidence base produced, further to the previous Regulation 14 consultation. It is considered that some policies, informed by the retrospective evidence, do not reflect the requirements of national policy and guidance, Gladman have therefore sought to recommend a series of alternative options that should be explored prior to the Plan being submitted for Independent Examination.

Green Wedge Assessment

Gladman welcome the publication of the Green Wedge Assessment, although do indeed consider it regrettable that this was not available at the previous Regulation 14 consultation.

As stated in our previous response, Gladman considered that Policy CSM 14, which proposed a Green Wedge, is considered a strategic policy, beyond the remit of the neighbourhood plan that would have the effect of imposing a blanket restriction on development to the west of Creech St Michael. Reference is made within the Green Wedge to a longstanding history of the use of Green Wedges in the Taunton Deane Area, with the East Taunton Local Plan (1991) being 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 strategic planning and an issue that should not be dealt with in a neighbourhood plan.

As the Parish Council will be aware, Gladman have land interest in the NPA, and have a pending application for up to 200 dwellings with public open space 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.

Having had the opportunity to review the Green Wedge Assessment, Gladman are concerned that the findings are not considered sufficiently robust as to justify the inclusion of such a restrictive policy. Whilst reference is made on page 3 of the Assessment to the importance of ensuring that the objectives of policies CSM 13 and 14 are not to prevent

growth, we consider that the evidence produced, appears to do just that. Further Gladman are concerned that the Green Wedge Policy was set out in the draft Plan before the evidence was made available and as such, we question whether the evidence base has simply been produced retrospectively to support the decisions regarding Green Wedge that have already been made.

Gladman note that Area 1, as defined in the Green Wedge Assessment has been assessed against 6 identified purposes of the Green Wedge. The first of these refers to the coalescence of settlements and wider urban area. As previously stated, we submit that the M5 acts as a natural barrier to prevent coalescence between Creech St Michael and Monkton Heathfield and as such do not consider that a Green Wedge is necessary to protect the separate identities of Creech St Michael and Monkton Heathfield.

The second purpose refers to contribution to a sense of identity and place, with the analysis of Area 1 concluding that the area provides a key rural gateway between the urban extension and Creech St Michael. In response to this criterion, Gladman suggest that an area’s pleasant sense of openness and rural feel cannot simply amount to a landscape which should be protected and providing a rural gateway does not amount to contributing to a unique sense of identity.

In respect of the low scoring when assessing the contribution of recreation opportunities, Gladman would like to remind the Parish Council that development of the land south of Langaller Lane, which as stated in the Green Wedge Assessment is in private ownership currently, would lead to the provision of publicly accessible open space and a Locally Equipped Area for Play.

Reference is made within the Green Wedge Assessment to a ‘recent ecological survey to support a planning application to the south of Langaller Lane recorded 8 species of bat including Lesser Horseshoe. Gladman would like to remind the Parish Council that the Ecological Impact Assessment, referenced here, submitted as part of the pending planning application for 200 dwellings, concluded that ‘with the implementation of some straightforward mitigation and precautionary measures as proposed with this scheme, the development is not 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.

Housing Needs Survey

The August 2017 Housing Needs Survey, which again regrettably has only recently been published for review, concludes that a low level of affordable housing need has been identified and concludes that it is not necessary to 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.

Further we are concerned that the Housing Needs Survey does not represent a robust evidence base upon which to base policies with the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Within the summary of the Affordable Housing Needs Findings, it is clearly stated that only 24% of respondents who were asked to complete the survey did so. We therefore suggest that it is wholly inappropriate to draw any conclusions from the survey, given that over 75% of results are unavailable.

Draft Policy CSM 3 – Housing to meet local needs, cites the Housing Needs Survey as the primary evidence supporting this policy. Gladman are however unclear how any of the findings from the Housing Needs Survey support policy CSM 3 and specifically the reference made to planning applications for 11 or 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.

Conclusions

Gladman recognises the role of neighbourhood plans as a tool for local people to shape the development of their local community. However, it is clear from national guidance that these must be consistent with national planning policy and the strategic requirements for the wider authority area. Through this consultation response, Gladman has sought to clarify the relation of the CSMNP as currently proposed with the requirements of national planning policy and the wider strategic policies for the wider area.

Gladman hopes you have found these representations helpful and constructive. If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me or one of the Gladman team.

Yours faithfully,

Megan Pashley [email protected] Gladman Developments Ltd. From: Sent: 18 March 2018 15:59 To: planning.wellington Cc: [email protected] Subject: Creech St Michael Development plan

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you with regards to the Creech St Michael development Plan. Specifically with regards to wanting to ensure that "Creech St Michael Parish in 20 years time is a safe and friendly environment while remaining rural, peaceful and green".

We have lived in the village since 2013 and are horrified at the hugely increased volume of traffic since then. Also the ridiculous speeds with which some drivers go through the village, particularly at the Mill Lane end as there are very few speed restrictions at this end of the village. Since the ill- advised rerouting of the 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.

Yours Sincerely

From: Hellier, Steve Sent: 15 March 2018 10:08 To: planning.wellington Cc: [email protected]; '[email protected]' ; Garnier, Chrystèle Subject: Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Development Plan - FURTHER Consultation Period 13TH MARCH 2018 - 3rd April 2018

Dear Sir,

Thank you for consulting us on the Parish Council’s proposals further Regulation 14 consultation for the Neighbourhood Plan for Creech St Michael.

We have no further comments to those we sent on 2 February.

Kind regards,

Steve Steve Hellier, Planning Manager (Highways Development Management) South West Operations Division Highways England | Ash House | Falcon Road, Sowton Ind. Estate | Exeter | EX2 7LB Tel: 0300 470 4383 | Mobile: 07917 068800 Web: https://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers Highways England Company Limited | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ | Registered in England and Wales No. 9346363

From: Stephen Baimbridge Sent: 20 March 2018 16:43 To: planning.wellington Subject: FW: Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Development Plan - FURTHER Consultation Period 13TH MARCH 2018 - 3rd April 2018

Dear Sirs,

I write in relation to the further Regulation 14 consultation being undertaken regarding the Housing Needs Survey and Green Wedge Policy of the Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Having read and duly considered the Housing Needs Survey and Green Wedge Policy, I have no comments to make.

Kind regards,

Stephen

Stephen Baimbridge | Policy Planner (01935) 462497 Planning Policy, South Somerset District Council, Brympton Way, Yeovil, Somerset BA20 2HT

From: Rhodes, Ann Sent: 03 April 2018 14:46 To: rebecca.randall Cc: planning.wellington Subject: Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Development Plan - FURTHER Consultation Period 13TH MARCH 2018 - 3rd April 2018

Dear Creech St Michael Parish Council

Thank you for asking TDBC to comment on the further consultation period for the CSM Neighbourhood Plan. TDBC Planning Policy comments are restricted to the Green Wedge Assessment as the Housing Needs Survey was undertaken by TDBC Housing Enabling Team and the “Conclusions” section of the document contains the Councils opinion.

The Green Wedge Assessment: As with TDBC’s previous advice to the Qualifying Body (QB), these comments are made in the spirit of positive, and constructive collaboration. Observation are made to help the CSM NDP pass the examination legal tests (Basic Conditions and EU Obligations) and to be able to be effectively and consistently applied to planning application decisions, to achieve the communities aims/objectives.

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

Opportunities to strengthen the document: We would recommend that stronger links are made to the functions of the Green Wedge in the adopted TDBC Core Strategy and the TDBC 2015 Green Wedge Assessment.

https://www.tauntondeane.gov.uk/media/1745/adopted-core-strategy-2011- 2028.pdf - The Core Strategy Policy CP8 Environment and its Local Policy Context (Pg.46-49), Taunton Spatial Portrait and Vision (Pg.59-60) and context for the Core Strategies new green wedges for example.

https://www.tauntondeane.gov.uk/media/1047/final-green-wedge-assessment- june-2015.pdf - TDBC Final Green Wedge Assessment 2015 its Introduction, key policy objectives and scope of the 2015 assessment for example.

Context map(s) and photographs would be helpful, particularly for the lay-person and the Independent Examiner who are not 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.

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

Area 2: no comment on conclusion. Suggest that the area as shown may have merits being defined by the NDP as Local Green Space.

Area 3: suggest this is complicated by the Neighbourhood Plan Area boundary, which follows the Parish Boundary (also follows the Sedgemoor/TDBC administrative boundaries). This boundary effects the ability to designate Green Wedge, for example: the areas outside the scope and influence of the NDP 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.

We hope that these observations will help CSM as it develops its NDP. TDBC will continue to offer advice and support to the QB as it undertakes this process.

Kind Regards

Ann Rhodes

Policy Officer (Planning and Environment) Taunton Deane Borough Council and West Somerset Council

Planning Policy Team: High Commendation, Planning Awards Local Authority Planning Team of the Year 2017. direct dial: 01823 356484 / 219522 int ext: 2222 / 9522 e-mail: [email protected] web: www.tauntondeane.gov.uk web: www.westsomersetonline.gov.uk

Please consider the environment and think before you print

Date: 28 March 2018 Our ref: 242662 Your ref: Creech St Michael NDP

Mr S Altria Clerk to Creech St Michael Parish Council Hornbeam House WYG Crewe Business Park Electra Way Hawkridge House Crewe Chelston Business Park Cheshire Wellington Somerset CW1 6GJ TA21 8YA T 0300 060 3900

BY EMAIL ONLY [email protected]

Dear Mr Altria

Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Development Plan (Housing Needs Survey & Green Wedge Assessment)

Thank you for your consultation on the above which was received by Natural England on 13th March 2018.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England does not consider that the Housing Needs Survey and Green Wedge Assessment poses anylikelyrisk or opportunityin relation to our statutorypurpose, andso does not wish to comment.

The lack of comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment. Other bodies and individuals may wish to make comments that might help the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fully take account of any environmental risks and opportunities relating to this document.

If you disagree with our assessment of this proposal as low risk, or should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment, then in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, please consult Natural England again.

Yours sincerely

Sharon Jenkins Consultations Team

Page 1 of 1

FEEDBACK

CREECH ST MICHAEL NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN – REGULATION 14 DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION

Green Wedge Policy

The Green Wedge Policy has been developed specifically to prevent development around the village of Creech St Michael which is contrary to the objectives of national planning policy and in my opinion should be removed from the Neighbourhood Plan in its entirety. It also contradicts other Policies within the Neighbourhood Plan which cannot be delivered without growth.

The references to National Policy within the Green Wedge Policy at section 3.0 highlight that there is no firm policy basis for the designation:

There are relatively few sustainable opportunities for growth in or around the village of Creech St Michael due to flood zones. The protection of Green Wedge land in the longer term could lead to pressure to develop land within flood zones (as has occurred elsewhere) which in my opinion is not a desirable outcome.

•

In conclusion the Green Wedge Policy is entirely inappropriate and should be removed from the Neighbourhood Plan.