ROCKBEARE PARISH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING MEETING HELD ON 23 OCTOBER, 2003
AT MARSH GREEN VILLAGE HALL
PRESENT Cllr Gaynor Daniels Cllr Sue Davies
Cllr Ian Please
Cllr. Colin Please (Chairman)
Cllr Monica Raynor Cllr Moira Trigger
APOLOGIES Cllr David Rivett
IN ATTENDANCE 3 members of the public
The acting Clerk to the Council: Mrs Mary Rowe
1. Application number 03P1900
Type of Application Outline
Proposal development of a new town comprising residential development, live-work units, employment development, community uses, retail facilities, leisure facilities, sports and recreation facilities, country park, new railway station landscaping engineering works, cemetery, allotments and related infrastructure.
Location Land north of Rockbeare, between former A30 and the Exeter Honiton Railway Line.
Applicant Consortium of developers.
Comment at the end of this document
2. Local Plan – Revised Deposit Draft – Council response. At the end of this document
3. Application No. 7/11/03/P2409/00062
Type of application Full
Applicant Mr. T Hurst
Location Little Allercombe Farm, Allercombe
Proposal Annex for elderly relatives
Comment Recommend Refusal:
Reason: the proposed development is too large for an annexe.
There would be no objection, however to the development of a reasonable sized ‘granny annexe’.
If EDDC were minded to approve this application please consider the following conditions:
¨ The application as stated is retained as one unit as an annexe to the main dwelling, and not be made into a new separate dwelling.
¨ That the building’s future use is not for commercial purposes.
4. Decisions: erection of wall, Middle Marsh Farm – Grant of Listed Building Consent.
Chairman…………………………………………Date…………………………….
EAST DEVON LOCAL PLAN 1995/2011
REVISED DEPOSIT SEPTEMBER 2003
The Parish Council wish to comment on the following:
Policy S 1B 1,2,& 4 Totally oppose. 3. SupportPolicy S2 Support
Policy S3 Support
Policy S4 Support
Policy S5 Not strong enough, ‘should’ delete replace with must.
Policy D1 - Support
Policy D1B Support
Policy D4 Support
Policy D5 Support
Policy D8 Support
Policy D9B Support
Policy EN2 Support
Policy EN3 Support
Policy EN4 Support
Policy EN5 Support
Policy EN6 Support
Policy EN8 Support
Policy EN9 Support
Policy EN13 Support
Policy EN14 Support
Policy EN15 Support
Policy EN16 Strongly support
Policy EN17 Support
Policy EN21 Support
Policy EN26 Support
Policy EN27 Not strong enough
Policy H2B Support
Policy H3 Support
Policy H4 Do not support the removal of this policy / Policy H5 Strongly support
Policy H9 Support
Policy H9B Support
Policy H11 Support
Policy E3 Support
Policy E4 Support
Policy E5 Support
Policy E6 Support
Policy SH7 Support
Policy SH9 Support
Policy SH10 Support
Policy TO1 Support
Policy TO2 Support
Policy RE1 Support
Policy RE2 Oppose deletion 3 car
Policy RE3 Support
Policy RE4 Support
Policy RE5 Support
Policy C3 Support
Policy C3B Support
Policy C8 Strongly support
Policy TA1 Support
Policy TA3 Support
Policy TA4 Support
Policy TA6 Support
Policy TA8 Support
Proposal AEA1 States that ‘provide for timely and integrated provision of the necessary community facilities and infrastructure’. In the planning application there is a timetable for dwellings, BUT NOT for infrastructure etc.(see 8)
1. Railway – where will passengers be taken from the New Town, - St David’s Station is not near employment centres. Will need appropriate stations on the way into Exeter employment areas to be of any use.
2. This must be tightened up. The way this is written financial contributions towards the road link between the old A30 and the new A30 will only be made at the end of the construction of the new town, Skypark, Intermodal freight Facility. Some of these developments may not materialise. This road MUST BE CONTRUCTED BEFORE any development is undertaken – the financing must be agreed up front.
‘The new community boundary………………this is 1400 metres away from any proposed new dwellings in this new community’. That may be within the directives at the moment, but what will happen if the directives in the future will alter this buffer of 14000metres? The houses will not be demolished, so that it would be the curtailment of Airport activity and development. We support the Airport and its aspirations to be the Airport of the far South West. There needs to be a wider buffer between the Airport and the dwellings for the benefit of the Airport and the residents of the New Town..
Proposal AEA5 We totally oppose the deletions in this proposal.
31 October, 2003
The Planning Department,
East Devon District Council
Knowle,
Sidmouth EX10 8HL
4. Application number 03P1900
Type of Application Outline
Proposal development of a new town comprising residential development, live-work units, employment development, community uses including two primary schools and one secondary school), retail facilities, leisure facilities, sports and recreation facilities, country park, new railway station (including car parking spaces), landscaping, engineering works (including compensatory flood plain works), cemetery, allotments and related infrastructure.
Location Land north of Rockbeare, between former A30 and the Exeter Honiton Railway Line.
Applicant Consortium of developers.
Comment Recommend refusal, Policy H2 refers
Rockbeare Parish Council totally opposes the principle of the new town; nevertheless we have endeavoured to comment on this proposal to the best of our ability. However, we are not competent to comment on all areas of the application. In reading this application it is clear that no consideration has been given to the objections received by East Devon District Council at the Deposit Stage, and we are most concerned that this exercise will likewise be a paper exercise; i.e. any objections will be ignored.
This is a clever and cleverly constructed storybook, high on description and colour, but low on fact and substance. There is as much unsaid as said in this application. We fear and know that already authorities have been hoodwinked and fooled by aspects of this application. We believe it is crucial that the views of local people are weighed properly against what the ‘experts’ say, as local people will have to live with the consequences of this new town (if it is built) whereas the experts live elsewhere.
We haven’t seen a report from EDDC showing sites investigated and rejected for development as required in H2.
THE CONSORTIUM OF DEVELOPERS
Experience and history of previous large and small developments is that ‘106 agreements’ have no teeth. Agreements are broken; developers go ‘bust’ or other ruses to default on their obligations. How can we have confidence that agreements with the developers will be delivered? especially when policies within the Revised Deposit of the Local Plan have been so watered down that they can mean anything? A financial bond or indemnity must be put in place, so if one member of the consortium defaulted, the Section 106 agreements would be protected. It seems that these are the only means of delivering the infrastructure. We understand that a Section 106 agreement is only protected for 5 years and therefore we must have protection to ensure that the infrastructure is delivered.
There is a programme of potential development (page 19), but nowhere is there a programme of potential infrastructure.
We must strongly recommend that the Clyst Honiton bypass is built as a pre-requisite to any development, otherwise, this bypass will never be built. Unless it is completed before any development commences on the site, the impact of dust, lorries and effect on the environment will be tremendous.
THE SITE
The area for the initial development is 179 hectares, of this 128 hectares will be irreversibly removed from agricultural production. This is contrary to policy EN20, which states ‘planning permission for development affecting such land will only be granted exceptionally if there is an overriding need for the development….’.The need for this development has not been demonstrated.
The report describes anticipated landscape and visual impacts during construction, on completion (of the initial phase) and 20 years after completion of the original development of 2900 dwellings. This is a ‘smoke screen’. Long before the initial phase is completed, the additional 30% dwellings will have been embarked upon.
Furthermore the report goes on to state that it is inevitable that significant development will be required to meet the longer term, as yet unidentified needs. If the size of the longer-term needs cannot be identified, how can it be stated that the existing topography ensures that separation from existing settlements can be permanently maintained? It is quite obvious that it cannot -- the ‘get out’ is contained in 7.117 -- in reality the term ‘future date’ allows for unspecified expansion in any direction. This could ultimately result in the absorption of Broadclyst, Whimple, Rockbeare and Dog Village into one conglomerate with the proposed new development.
The site (3.35) -- The breach of the old A30 cannot be permitted. We have constantly been told by EDDC that the northern boundary is the railway line and the southern boundary is the old A30. Described as ‘only’ replacement flood plain, or Country Park, it effectively breaks the principle, and could lead to further development on the southern side. If indeed, a country park was created, then car parking would be needed, and that would mean even more development.
We do not see the need for the whole site to be built by one consortium. Land can be sold for ‘self build’ for local people, given for various community facilities. This land needs to be given as Freehold, not Leasehold. Care must be taken that the whole site is not broken up and sold on to other developers to avoid the infrastructure requirements. Lots of safeguards need to be in place. Policies TA6, TA7 and AEA1 refers.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE SITE/NEW TOWN
RECOMMEND A NEW TOWN ADMINISTRATOR IS IN PLACE BEFORE THE FIRST RESIDENT.
There needs to be a ‘Parish Administrator’ initially, with local residents groups until the new town is ready for a Town Council. The Administrator will be responsible for working with the Developers on site resolving problems, administer the cemetery, allotments, community leisure, play facilities, one-stop shop for the District and County Council, etc.
SUSTAINABILITY
It is quite obvious that the infrastructure described on the original application is sufficient to service a great deal more than the initial 2,900 dwellings. It is clear that the new town cannot ever be sustainable at the proposed size, and therefore, as Professor Lock stated at the EiP, the new town needs 5,000 dwellings to ensure that sustainability is delivered. At this level and unless we are very careful, all we will end up with will be nothing more than a dormitory estate to Exeter; urban sprawl spreading its tentacles into rural East Devon.
DESIGN BRIEF
Architecturally there is no detail of significance other than stating that the buildings will be two, three and four storeys. Concern has been expressed regarding the ‘wind tunnel’ effect that happens with tall buildings. Also there is a danger that if natural light is excluded from walking areas it will be gloomy and also can encourage low level crime. The design brief must be respectful of the development. Policies D1, D1B and C5 refers
THE EFFECT OF THE NEW TOWN ON THE AREA
There are several aspects to consider:
¨ The run off of water from the developments could adversely affect surrounding agricultural land, although not flooding could seriously worsen soil waterlogging. This has already happened when the A30 was constructed – fields thought not to be affected, have been.
¨ Employment in building and related trades – where will these skilled workforce come from – a clause that only ‘local’ (a definition maybe of those from Devon and Cornwall) people could be employed? A cheaper workforce must not be ‘bussed’ in. Development must be used to generate ‘wealth’ for the area, which will then be spent in the area.
DWELLINGS
RECOMMEND THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND ENVIRONMENT ARE OF THE HIGHEST STANDARD IN DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, AND PEOPLE FRIENDLY.
We would wish to see world class design of energy efficient, attractive dwellings, maybe with shared services – waste, water recycling, recycling, heating, solar heating etc
With the restriction of only 1.5 cars per dwelling, regulations must be in place in that no home owner must be able to concrete out his front garden to provide an additional car parking space, as this would create additional surface water with severe repercussions. An imaginative car sharing scheme as piloted in (we believe) Edinburgh could be used.
The 3 storey buildings close to London Road and Bluehayes must not be permitted.
The 40% affordable housing must stay, and not be exported out to the outlying villages (as suggested in the Environment Overview committee agenda papers recently)
Low cost housing is welcomed but concern is expressed as to how ‘low cost’ is defined, and how these dwellings can be retained as ‘low cost’. What proportion of these dwellings will be ‘social housing’? What support will be in place for these people as we don’t want ‘little Beiruts – sink areas’ to develop (as has happened on other developments). We do not want this new town to be the ‘dumping ground’ for problem families from Exeter and East Devon, and need assurances to this effect. Policies H2B, H3 and H5 refers.
CRIME AND DISORDER
RECOMMEND A CO-ORDINATED APPROACH FROM THE BEGINNING BETWEEN THE POLICE AND THE NEW TOWN ADMINISTRATOR.
We need to look forward to active police presence to ensure that mugging and crime does not flourish as it does in other new towns. The design of areas must not attract anti-social behaviour. Perhaps a pilot incorporating zero tolerance of anti social behaviour inorder to keep the new town safe and tidy.
EDUCATION
RECOMMEND THAT A PROPER REVIEW OF ‘WHAT, HOW, WHEN AND WHERE’ IS UNDERTAKEN AND ITS FINDINGS MADE PUBLIC ESPECIALLY TO PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE NEW TOWN, TO ALAY FEARS.
Without major improvements, there will be problems with school children going to school using Station Road and Crannaford. There are no pavements in many sections of Station Road and none with Crannaford; none are shown on the Outline Plan. Also children coming from Rockbeare, there is no dedicated, safe way to school. Without doubt schools must be built in the first phase of the development, indeed the plan states that two primary schools will be built by the developer, but that the senior school will built with a contribution based on the number of children from the new town attending the school. That suggests that the school will not be built until the dwellings are occupied. Which school will these children attend in the meantime; local schools are full?