Community Focus Group Report on the Totnes and Dartington Development Plan Document May 2008

Co-ordinated by Totnes Town Council and the Totnes and District Community Strategy Group

Contents

1) Summary of Recommendations

2) Our Approach

3) Our Vision

4) Strategic Objectives and Targets

5) Housing: Key Issues
   –  use of green field sites for housing
   –  infrastructure concerns
   –  the need for affordable housing
   –  impact on local distinctiveness
   –  other issues

6) Employment Sites, Key Issues
   –  green field sites
   –  existing employment sites

7) Community Focus Group Recommendations

8) Appendices

A: Participants
B: Timetable of meetings
C: Individual Site Assessments

Site 1 Marlands Farm

Site 5/6, Riverside

Site 7, Baltic Wharf

Site 9, Follaton Bungalows

Site 10, Follaton House

Site 13, Copland Lane

Site 18, Webbers Yard

Site 19, Opposite Webbers Yard

Site 20, Bidwell

Site 21, Puddavine

Sites 22, 23, 24 Meadowside

Site 25, KEVICC Lower Field

Site 26, Dairy Crest

Site 27, Sheepfield

New site, Beacon Park

New site Marley Head

1) Summary of Recommendations

Housing

We strongly support use of brown field sites in preference to green field sites. Pressure on land and the need for housing means that we propose increases to density levels, particularly in the centre of town. Our preferred sites for housing are:

* If Dartington residents support limited housing on Webbers Yard, then this will be included as a preferred option site, and other sites adjusted accordingly.

Site 24, Meadwside, and Site 27 Sheepfield: we would welcome any plans for a self build, 100% affordable housing development on either of these sites.

Employment Land
In view of growth forecasts, we support provision of three hectares of land for employment. Additionally, we accept that a further two hectares should be held in reserve, to be made available only once existing brown field sites have been fully utilised   –  
   –  Riverside, 2 hectare
   –  Beacon Farm, 1 hectare
   –  Site 19, Opposite Webbers Yard, 2 hectares (to be held in reserve).

Existing Employment Sites
Existing employment sites at Baltic Wharf, Dairy Crest (and Webbers Yard?) should be re-designated as suitable for mixed use in order to improve employment opportunities. Safeguards should be included to ensure these to remain predominantly employment sites.

N.B. Webbers Yard will only be included if Dartington residents support housing on the site.

Market Square
Specific proposals for the Civic Hall/Market Square should be developed via the Town Council. We support reclassifying this area for mixed use to enable development, but require safeguards to protect the market/market traders. An integrated approach, which links development plans for the Market Square with the later phases of the adjacent Southern Area development, is requested.

Other Issues
There are a number of other areas where provisos are sought to protect key aspects or facilities. In particular, we wish to protect marine employment and key boating and leisure facilities, and ensure provision of a high quality public realm, with a focus on ensuring open space.

We are also disappointed that the position for a new school is not clear, and concerned that, if the Grove School might potentially remain, then we do not have an adequate strategy to address the need for improved facilities for young people in the town.

2) Our Approach

Broad Approach

2.1 There were a number of key elements which guided the approach taken by the Focus Group:
    a) the initial meeting of the group was set by SHDC for the end of February. Given the timetable SHDC
     planners were working to, the conclusions of the group needed to be determined by the end of April,
    b) there was limited officer time available; and
    c) community representatives could not reasonably be asked to give up excessive amounts of time, in         attending countless meetings.

It was therefore decided to divide the work up between three subgroups, before coming together to agree a position based on the recommendations of each group. The groups were:
    a) an STA group, which worked with officers to review the Sustainability Threshold Assessment process          before looking at the assessments of each of the short listed sites,
    b) an Employment group to review potential employment sites,
    c) a Housing group to review potential housing sites.

N.B. The full timetable of meetings undertaken is given in Appendix B.

It was also recognised that local District Councillors, as the elected representatives of Totnes and Dartington, have a pivotal role to play, and they were invited to be involved as much as their time commitments would permit, with an open invitation to all meetings.

Process

2.2 The first plenary meeting was used primarily to air the issues which surround the DPD, and seek guidance from SHDC officers about their policies and position. Following a discussion on “windfall” sites at this meeting, it was the understanding of those present that SHDC had selected green field sites in preference to brown field sites for housing, to enable additional development on windfall sites, and thus increase the overall number of affordable homes built. As this could potentially double the number of houses to be built, and as this had not been made clear in the original DPD consultation, a questionnaire was circulated seeking community feedback on the difficult balance between maximising affordable housing while acknowledging existing infrastructure concerns,. The questionnaire confirmed that only 11% of respondents were willing to see more than 400 homes built in Totnes and Dartington during the plan period.

Thereafter, the groups concentrated their activity on sites which were short listed by agreement at the initial meeting, based on the community responses to the DPD:

2.3 The STA group were asked to review the Sustainability Threshold Assessment system with officers before re-assessing the short listed sites. We were particularly concerned to ensure that feedback from community consultation, which sought greater clarity on what makes Totnes and Dartington distinctive, and sustainable approaches to planning, was properly reflected in the assessment process - both through the questions which define each criterion, and the assessments which result. This work has not been completed at the time of writing.

2.4 Both the Housing and Employment groups received an initial briefing from SHDC officers on pertinent background information and had the opportunity to discuss the issues involved.

2.5 These groups also focussed on some key issues coming out of the DPD consultation: Thus, the Housing group reviewed the KEVICC proposals, by receiving a presentation from KEVICC Principal Steven Jones before giving SOFA the opportunity to put an alternative view. The Employment group had a presentation from TQ9 concerning possible developments of Baltic Wharf. The latter group also discussed concerns expressed through the DPD consultation process regarding proposals (and necessary safeguards) for marine activity, both employment and leisure.

2.6 A shortlist of key criteria for site assessment was drawn up, based on the STA discussions and the Vision agreed by the community, which was then used to help prepare briefing notes for each of the Housing and Employment Groups to undertake a review of each site.

2.7 Each of the Employment and Housing Groups then met to weigh up the merits of each site, and develop proposals for the final plenary session to consider. Wherever possible, consensus and convergence was sought, to help reach a conclusion which was likely to be acceptable to as many people as possible, and reflect the concerns of the community.

2.8 A formal plenary session was then held to integrate the whole, and agree conclusions. While participants had a clear initial mandate based upon their own organisation’s response to the DPD, new information received during Focus Group meetings plus the effort to reach a consensual position, might make it difficult for them to reach a decision. Anyone who felt unable to endorse a position, because they did not feel themselves to have a clear mandate, was enabled to abstain.

2.9 At the point of writing this report, the STA group remain keen to continue working with officers to conclude this work and also look at target setting within the DPD. Finally, they wish to ensure that the wishes of the community, as expressed through the consultation process, are properly reflected in the suite of policy documents which support the DPD.

Feedback to the Community

2.10 The Focus Group is very aware that it cannot be seen to be wholly representative of all the community. We also recognise that SHDC may ultimately decide not to amend the DPD Preferred Options, or put other alternatives forward to Inspection later in the year.

2.11 Throughout this process, we have stressed that any individual or group who does not agree with the contents either the conclusions of the Focus Group or, more importantly, the next stage of the SHDC DPD will, of course, be able to exercise their democratic right to oppose any part of its recommendations. Indeed a joint community response may once again be put forward at the next stage of the process, if we are collectively opposed to its ultimate recommendations.

2.12 The Town Council has sought to keep the community informed, holding a public meeting on 26th March for this purpose. They are planning a further public meeting as part of their efforts to ensure that the outcomes of the Community Focus Group’s deliberations will be publicised

An Important Definition

The word “sustainable” is in danger of being overused, and abused. In dealing with the DPD, we support the government definition of sustainable development, i.e. that which meets the four following objectives , in the UK and the world as a whole:
   –  social progress which recognises the needs of everyone,
   –  effective protection of the environment,
   –  prudent use of natural resources,
   –  maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. 

3) Our Vision

Community group feedback in response to the DPD sought to strengthen two key elements in the Vision – by defining what makes Totnes and Dartngton distinctive, and by making explicit the ways in which to deliver sustainable developments in the face of depleting resources. The original version has therefore been extended to address these needs.

However, we also received feedback that a shorter statement of intent would be helpful in communicating the principle objectives of the DPD. We have therefore added a preliminary Mission Statement.

Our Mission
Totnes and Dartington will retain their distinctive vibrant, outward looking characters as separate, complementary communities. Through effective planning, we will build on their combined natural and culturally rich history to continue to take a lead on sustainable development. In addition, we will lead on finding and implementing innovative sustainable solutions to local, national and global challenges.

Our Vision
"By building on the cultural, natural and community assets which we share, Totnes and Dartington can secure our position as a small, thriving market town and cultural centre, serving the larger area. The historic town centre, with its independent retail character and outstanding buildings, creates a strong sense of place, reinforced by the river setting and surrounding hills, while our community is characterized by progressive ideals and creative capability. These qualities combine to create the lively, tolerant and diverse community which make Totnes and Dartington each individually distinctive.

New development must meet the needs of the Totnes and Dartington area, particularly for affordable homes and jobs. Sustainable development, based on planning decisions which support localisation, and encourage the use of locally distinctive building materials, low carbon/energy efficiency, and the development of local renewable energy,, will increase our resilience in the face of depleting natural resources and climate change, and reduce transport dependency. Development on green field sites will be minimized through a policy of densification coupled with enhancement of the public realm, leading to compact, convivial neighbourhood communities.

For Totnes, the focus of the town will be widened from the town centre to include both banks of the river Dart. This will help increase the vitality, community togetherness and self containment of the town as a whole and assist the wellbeing of Bridgetown.

For Dartington, the settlement’s sustainability will be enhanced through recognition of its interdependence with Totnes, while ensuring that the local character and identity of each, and their physical separation, will be preserved."

4) Strategic Objectives, Targets, and the Sustainability Threshold Assessments (STAs)

n.b. STAs are the site assessments summarised in the coloured matrix toward the back of the DPD. They are important as they initially help eliminate unsuitable sites, and thereafter contribute to the site assessment process. If they do not properly reflect legitimate community concerns, then the process by which sites are selected is equally weakened.

4.1 The DPD consultation has led to a wealth of feedback about how the community wants development to be implemented, as well as where. We view it as a lost opportunity, as well as an incomplete consultation, if this information were to be discounted.

We believe that many of the points raised should be reflected in the suite of policy documents which support the DPD. This applies particularly to the Core Strategy document.

We have therefore asked SHDC to indicate how they intend to ensure our priorities are properly reflected in the Core Strategy document, and other relevant policy documents.

4.2 Additionally, it is proposed that the STA working group comprising Adrian Porter (TTT), Kate Wilson (FoE), Dave Mitchell (TotSoc/DOS), Jill Tomalin (Strategy Group) and Tony Whitty (Totnes Town Council) work with officers to develop targets within the DPD document, which support the achievement of the community’s aspirations. An invitation will again be extended to Dartington Parish Council to ensure broad representation.

4.3 This group is also willing to meet again with officers to finalise the STA assessments and try to ensure they more closely reflect the community’s views in the assessment of individual sites. It is currently felt that the STAs do not properly mirror community concerns about local distinctiveness, or flood risk. The assessment proposed for Beacon Farm is questioned as unduly harsh.

5) Housing: Key Issues

5.1 The key housing issues which concerned the Housing Group were:
   –  use of green field sites for housing
   –  infrastructure concerns
   –  the need for affordable housing
   –  impact on local distinctiveness

5.2 Community responses to the DPD demonstrated a depth of feeling against using green field sites. It has been important to us that two key criteria in site selection should be:
   –  a strong preference for brown field sites wherever possible; and
   –  a desire to increase housing density levels to minimise the amount of green field land lost to development.

It is perhaps worth noting that both national government and SHDC have adopted a similar strategy in favour of prioritising brown field sites.

5.3 We were also concerned that the selection of green field sites for new housing development laid open the possibility of significantly more than 400 homes being built during the plan period, on so called “windfall” sites. Responses to a questionnaire developed by the Town Council when this became apparent made clear that residents do not want to see significantly more than 400 houses built, notwithstanding the need for affordable housing, because of concerns about the inadequate infrastructure to support them. This outcome confirmed the strength of feeling about infrastructure which made it the most commented upon issue in the responses to the DPD.

5.4 We remain mindful of the need for affordable housing. We support SHDC’s aim for at least 50% of all housing development to be affordable housing – and indeed would look more kindly on new developments where the level of affordable housing could be further increased. We would also like to find new and imaginative ways of building affordable homes, ensuring that it is genuinely affordable for local people, and that it is also affordable to live in i.e. is energy efficient. These are issues on which we would like to see further ongoing community involvement in the future to address the undoubted need.

5.5 The final key criterion (for all sites) was the impact on what we termed “local distinctiveness” i.e. what made Totnes and Dartington the special places that they are. We were concerned to protect sites which might adversely impact on:
   –  all approaches to Totnes and Dartington (road, rail and river),
   –  the river, in terms of leisure and employment activity and its natural setting,
   –  the continued separation of Totnes and Dartington,
   –  the encircling hills – both in terms of whether those hills were encroached upon and in terms of the views        of them,
   –  all approaches to the Dartington Estate.

N.B While the shopping experience on Fore St/High St is a key area of distinctiveness, this is considered to be appropriately protected by the policy statements within the DPD (proposal 8).

5.6 Other important issues were:
    a) Impact of seas level rises
        We are keenly aware of the dangers of flooding, and the need to anticipate rising sea levels and ensure         appropriate mitigation - where this is possible. We have been unable to fully get to grips with this issue,         as the Environment Agency reports are not currently complete. We would wish to be assured that any         sites close to the river, and particularly on flood plains, can be managed effectively to minimise risk.         Therefore all the sites which have been identified as preferred option sites come with the proviso that any         flooding risks can be effectively mitigated.
    b) proximity to town centre and easy public access
        Sites closer to the centre of town, which minimise car use and enable access, are deemed better for both         high density housing and B1 employment activity. We support improved pedestrian and cycle ways, and         have requested that a system of filtered permeability be considered.
    c) mixed use development
        This is seen as an important principle of future development, encouraging adjacency of work and living         areas, and social coherence. It is also desirable on existing brown field sites, particularly when selective         housing development can be used as a lever to enable densification or regeneration of employment         activity. It nonetheless goes alongside a determination to safeguard existing employment sites to prevent         them simply being taken over for housing.
    d) Dislike of large developments
        Smaller developments are preferred to encourage convivial communities, and to minimise impact on the         immediate area of increased traffic. However, there is a pragmatic recognition that developments need to         achieve critical mass to be viable, and to enable us to secure community benefits.
    e) Public Open Space
        All new developments (particularly if more densely built) need quality open spaces – and the town is         already short of play space, sports space, natural open space and allotments. There is a strong desire for         these elements of open space to be a high priority area in trying to secure new community facilities         alongside new developments. In particular, we ask for allotments to be provided to help address the         current shortfall of sites and high levels of unsatisfied demand (with over 50 people waiting for plots in         the allotment association in Totnes).

5.7 Additionally, we are concerned to ensure that developments alongside the river are sympathetically handled to provide a quality public realm with appropriate or enhanced access to leisure and community facilities.

5.8 Finally, it is imperative that any redevelopment of the Market Square, which is a key civic space, is to the highest standards, and is sympathetically designed to integrate both with the historic buildings which surround it and the new developments proposed behind it, as part of the continued development of the Southern Area. .

6) Employment Sites, Key Issues

Green field Sites

6.1 Four potential responses were identified to the requirement by the planning system that five hectares of new land should be identified for employment:
    a) to hold to the current position expressed by the joint community response to the DPD (and others) e.g.         identify one hectare (sited in the Riverside development in the DPD), and continue to believe that all         other employment needs can be satisfied through densification of existing brown field sites;
    b) to identify a compromise quantity (2/3 hectares)
    c) to identify five hectares, but phase or apply a sequential test before allowing some to be built on e.g.         indicate that some part of the five hectares can only be built on either after a certain time period, or only         when other sites had been shown to be fully utilised;
    d) to identify five hectares without constraints.

6.2 In the light of the information given by SHDC’s Michael Cozens on employment trends and needs, the Focus Group concluded that it was hard to sustain a position that densification would be sufficient, although all current sites, and particularly Webbers Yard, certainly appear under used.

This was essentially because:
   –  four hundred houses would theoretically require c520 jobs, which wee were advised equates to                  approximately 3.5 hectares); with high levels of growth anticipated, and the emphasis in the SHDC Core        Strategy that employment would be centred on the urban fringes, the A38 corridor and Totnes, the five        hectare target does not therefore appear wholly unreasonable.
   –  There is existing demand for employment space which cannot always be satisfied;
   –  it would be hard to justify the position to people who might feel that they were denied job opportunities        because we had not sanctioned the use of additional land.

6.3 Additionally, if five hectares are not identified as the planning system requires, there is a real risk that developers may challenge the position and secure approval for new land, such as Bidwell, which the community is strongly opposed to. We have therefore advocated a sequential approach which tries to address the need if it proves to be necessary, but holds to the principle that brown field land should be utilised fully first.

6.4 Thereafter, we support the preference for mixed use on sites wherever possible, and applied the same criteria for site selection as previously stated in section 3.

Existing Employment Sites

6.5 In accordance with our preference for mixed use sites wherever possible, it is recommended that the existing employment sites be re-designated as suitable for mixed use – but that appropriate safeguards are included in the DPD to ensure that these remain predominantly employment sites. Housing should only be permitted if there are clear benefits to employment provision on the site.

7) Community Focus Group Recommendations

7.1 Mission and Vision
A revised Vision Statement and new Mission Statement have been put forward.

7.2 Strategic Objectives, Targets and Sustainability Threshold Assessments (STAs).
As indicated on page 6, SHDC have been asked to confirm how they intend to ensure that the community priorities identified in the DPD consultation, are fed into the Core Strategy document, and all other relevant policy documents that support the DPD.

Additionally, it is proposed that the STA working group completes its work with officers on the STA assessments. It is felt that the STAs do not currently adequately reflect community concerns about local distinctiveness, or flood risk. The assessment proposed for Beacon Farm is questioned as unduly harsh. It was agreed that Dartington Parish Council would again be approached to have a representative from Dartington on this group.

The following specific recommendations of the STA group were approved by the Focus Group:
   –  There should be more explicit text within DPD about transport issues/concerns and climate change i.e. an        explicit restatement of approaches and policies for the lay reader;
   –  Similarly, Open Space is another cross cutting element which would benefit from being brought together        explicitly in the text;
   –  STA assessments should indicate the size of a site, and its potential for housing (high, medium, low        density, potential number of dwellings etc).
   –  Those criteria which do not differentiate between sites in Totnes, should be omitted from the STA matrix,        for clarity i.e. criteria where the assessment is the same for all sites under consideration. .

Finally, we would like to continue to work together to develop targets within the DPD, which support the achievement of the community’s aspirations, as laid out in the Vision and elsewhere.

7.3 Preferred Option Sites
Housing
The following sites are put forward as preferred option sites for housing:
   –  Riverside c140 units
   –  Baltic Wharf c100 units
   –  KEVICC c150 units
   –  Possibly Webbers Yard

N.B. It should be noted that the KEVICC decision was not unanimous, and achieved by a majority vote. If Dartington residents support limited housing on the Webbers Yard site to enable new employment activity, then this too will be included as a preferred option site.

Additionally, in order to minimise the land lost to development, we would wish to see the highest possible density levels of housing on these sites, e.g.:
   –  Riverside (Steamer Quay) c75 units per hectare (average) Riverside (Site 5) c60 units per hectare        (average)
   –  Baltic Wharf c75 units per hectare (average)
   –  KEVICC c60 units per hectare (average)

We believe that pressure on land and for housing means that we need a shift in our collective approach to housing design, and broad recognition that it is becoming imperative to increase density levels. We can achieve this in the centre of Totnes, through a combination of increasing the height of buildings and imaginative design. This need not compromise the quality of life for residents nor local distinctiveness, as demonstrated by the many existing buildings, such as former warehouses, in the vicinity. We therefore recommend that all planning for development in the centre of Totnes presumes a density level of 60, unless otherwise specified.

Finally, we believe that a principle should be established that if densification levels exceed 45 units per hectare, then some part at least of the space freed up should contribute to additional public open space.

Postscript: Site 24 (part of Meadowside)
There has long been community support for this site to be made available for a self build and/or co-housing project. We would welcome any plan which saw this site used for a 100% affordable self build housing development (and possibly co-housing), in conjunction with a Housing Association or through a Land Trust, as an innovative solution to providing affordable housing in perpetuity. It was noted that this might also help to achieve the affordable housing targets required, if brought forward in conjunction with a proposal for KEVICC.

7.4 Employment Land
In view of growth forecasts and need, and the concern that control will be lost, we have recommended three hectares of land suitable for immediate use. Additionally, a further two hectares of land should be held back in reserve, and not made available until existing brown field sites have been demonstrated co be fully utilised.

The following sites are therefore put forward:
   –  Riverside, 2 hectares
   –  Beacon Farm, 1 hectare
   –  Site 19, Opposite Webbers Yard, 2 hectares.
N.B. We view it as absolutely crucial that this is expressed in such a way as to hold site 19 back from development until this it can be clearly demonstrated that existing brown field sites have been properly utilised.

Postscript: Site 27 Sheepfield
The Focus Group concluded that this site might be suitable for mixed use or as a housing site, and is an ideal spot for allotments. Alternatively a proposal for a 100% affordable housing, self build, development would be welcomed. It was noted that this site too might help to achieve the affordable housing targets required, if included in a proposal for development at KEVICC.

7.5 Existing Employment Sites
We support the proposal that these existing employment sites are re-designated as suitable for mixed use in order to improve employment opportunities – but that appropriate safeguards are included in the DPD to ensure these remain predominantly employment sites. Housing should only be permitted if there are clear improvements to employment provision on the site:
   –  Baltic Wharf
   –  Dairy Crest
   –  Webbers Yard
n.b. Webbers Yard will only be included to this list if residents of Dartington decide to support housing on the site.

7.6 Market Square
It is recommended that specific proposals for the Civic Hall/Market Square development are progressed via the Town Council working group established for this purpose, with specialist input from SHDC officers. There is widespread agreement regarding the need for ongoing public consultation leading to specific proposals. Only then can the community as a whole determine its level of support for any development on this key site.

We therefore support reclassifying the Civic Square as suitable for mixed use in order to enable this possibility, but want to ensure appropriate safeguards are included in the DPD to protect themarket and market traders from the start – both in terms of ensuring the overall footprint of the market remains the same, and also that the livelihoods of market traders and adjacent small shopkeepers are fully protected.

Finally, we wish to be assured that there will be a coherent and integrated approach which properly links development plans for the Market Square with the later phases of the adjacent Southern Area development.

7.7 Other Safeguards
In addition to wanting to see suitable safeguards on employment sites and on the potential Market Square redevelopment, there are a number of other areas where provisos are sought to protect key aspects or facilities.
   –  protection (and/or enhancement) of marine employment on both sides of the river
   –  protection of key boating and leisure facilities, in particular on Steamer Quay i.e. Boating Association        facilities, Scout hut, caravan park
   –  no reduction in the number of accessible moorings in the event that the bridge is built.
   –  provision of a high quality public realm, and a focus on ensuring open space.

7.8 Other Key Issues
    a) New Primary School: we are disappointed that DCC have not specified their requirements for a new         school. With the anticipated growth in school rolls, it is clear that we will need either a larger school to         replace The Grove, or a third school to address rising demand. However, the site currently proposed in         the DPD on the edge of Bridgetown is not considered suitable by the community, as demonstrated in         their feedback on the DPD, nor by DCC. We hope that the position be clarified and a proposal put         forward in time for the publication of the revised DPD, to address this developing need.

    b) Youth Facilities: we are equally concerned that, if the Grove School might potentially remain, we do not         have an adequate strategy to address the existing need for improved facilities for young people in the         town. There is a danger that no suitable central site will be available, despite the growth forecast in         population, which will place added pressure on already inadequate facilities. We would again like to see         this position clarified and a proposal put forward in time for the publication of the revised DPD.

    c) 106 Money: 106 money is the term to describe the element within a development proposal which helps         to pay for community facilities such as infrastructure improvements, play spaces or allotments. The         major call on this money is affordable housing. The Focus Group is aware that there are already plentiful         demands on this for basic infrastructure needs and to support affordable housing, but ask planners to also         be sympathetic to these areas where appropriate:
   –   to support redevelopment of Civic Square,
   –   to support Open Space provision,
   –   to prioritise allotments,
   –   to encourage redevelopment of brown field employment sites

Appendix A: Participating Organisations

Berry Pomeroy Parish Council, Dartington Residents Association and Bridgetown Alive were also invited to participate by SHDC.

Appendix B: Timetable of Meetings

1) Initial Plenary Meeting 28th February

2) STA Group
    i) Full day meeting 26th March
   ii) Half day meeting 1st April
  iii) Half day meeting 10th April
  iv) Concluding meeting(s) tba

3) Housing Group
   i) Information meeting 1st April
      KEVICC proposals and:response by SOFA
      SHDC Briefing on housing issues

  ii) Site Assessment Evening 16th April
       based on feedback on EA Assessments, STA appraisals and key criteria

4) Employment Group
   i)  Information Evening 2nd April
       SHDC brief on business/economic Issues
       TQ9 re Baltic Wharf:
       Review of marine employment and leisure concerns

  ii) Site Assessment Meeting 10th April
        based on feedback on EA Assessments, STA appraisals and key criteria

5) Final Plenary Group Meeting 23rd April.

Appendix C; Individual Site Assessments
This section reviews those sites which were short listed for re-examination by the Focus Group, which were selected by agreement at the first meeting, based on the community feedback to the DPD. The Housing and Employment groups were each given a brief assessment based on:
    a) the STA assessments made by SHDC,
    b) any concerns expressed by the community representatives who reviewed the STAs, and
    c) the key criteria questions developed from community feedback to the DPD, and reflected in the revised          Vision proposed by the community.

The brief summaries which follow concentrate on the conclusions the groups reached from this starting point.

Site 1 Marlands Farm
3.8 hectares
Not considered suitable via the STA, this site has come forward and been rejected before. Problems with accessibility and its adverse impact on the landscape make it undesirable. It has therefore been rejected as inappropriate for employment use.

Site 5/6, Riverside
Site 5, Riverside, 6.8 hectares
Site 6, Steamer Quay, 2.2 hectares
Considered highly sustainable by the STA criteria, this site is seen as an opportunity for a mixed use development providing two hectares of new employment opportunities spread across Steamer Quay (site 5) and the lower part of site 6. This could stimulate provision for additional marine activity, an influx of new high tech or professional employers or other B1 activity, by providing an attractive business quarter, close to the town centre and river, and alongside upgraded leisure facilities and a high quality public realm.

Ideally, we would prefer c100 homes to support this, built at higher density levels to limit the size of the development, and its spread up the hillside, thus addressing concerns that the approach to Totnes via the river will be adversely affected if development is permitted all the way up site 5. However, it is recognised that this is unlikely to be viable, and a higher figure of 140 homes has been agreed by the Focus Group

Additionally, the Focus Group believes that the development on Steamer Quay and on the lower reaches of Site 5, Riverside, could be built to significantly high density levels, bearing in mind some of the adjacent developments on both sides of the river, such as former warehouses, and the topography, which would mask extra height. However, it is recognised that the combination of the need for family housing and greater visibility further up the hill side on site 5, limits the capacity for the highest levels of density, and a compromise average figure was determined for this site.

The Focus Group therefore supported the average density levels given here:
Steamer Quay 75 units per hectare
Riverside (site 5) 60 units per hectare

Finally, the Environment agency flood risk assessment may be complicating factor, which we are not currently in a position to assess.

N.B. We would also want to ensure that appropriate safeguards are added to the DPD to:
   –  protect (and/or enhance) marine employment opportunities,
   –  protect key boating and leisure facilities on Steamer Quay i.e. Boating Association facilities, Scout hut,         caravan park,
   –  retain the number of accessible moorings in the event that the bridge is built.,
   –  provide a high quality public realm.

Site 7, Baltic Wharf
8.5 hectares in total, approximately half is proposed for development.
Assessed as highly sustainable by the STA, this site is also considered suitable for mixed development, and provides a potential preferred option site for housing.

However, the major concern on Baltic Wharf is protecting the marine employment. We wish to ensure that there is adequate space retained for the boatyard/marine activity and a recommendation of 12,000sqm (1.2 hectares) was supported by the Focus Group. We therefore recognise that the opportunities for intensive development of this site may have been reduced, but believe that an acceptable enhancement of employment activity can still be achieved using the remaining available land.

Provision of c100 homes on the site, which is considered particularly suitable for high density development, is also proposed as a preferred option site. However, we would want reassurance that developing these homes would result in benefits for employment provision on the site.

Site 9, Follaton Bungalows
2.6 hectares
Currently assessed as having potential constraints by the STA, this assessment has been challenged by community representatives. It is reasonably close to town centre, with suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists. It is not subject to flooding. Although north facing, it is not considered very steep, and its development would potentially help upgrade facilities for residents in Follaton.

Although not ultimately put forward as a preferred option site for housing, Follaton Bungalows was considered a better alternative than either Puddavine or Meadowside, and would thus be considered the next best green field site. It could potentially provide 100+ dwellings.

Site 10, Follaton House
0.8 hectares
Assessed as having potential constraints by the STA, this is a small green field site which encroaches on the arboretum, and was consequently rejected for development.

Site 13, Copland Lane
6.3 hectares
The STA assessment describes this site as a “problematic location”. As a green field site which acts as a “holding tank” and therefore is at risk of flooding, only the furthest field could be considered for development, and this site was consequently rejected for housing. However, it was deemed particularly suitable as public open space, with potential for allotments.

Site 18, Webbers Yard
3.4 hectares
Assessed as highly sustainable by the STA, Webbers Yard is clearly in need of regeneration. It is badly underused, with a number of vacant units.

Dsrtington residents may support housing on Webbers Yard to enable regeneration of employment activity. This would then be considered as a preferred option site for housing. This site would then be re-designated as suitable for mixed use.

Site 19, Opposite Webbers Yard
Assessed as having potential constraints as a site by the STA, the assessment is currently identical to SHDC’s assessment of Bidwell (although community representatives argue that the criteria added to protect local distinctiveness have not been adequately applied to Bidwell). However this site does impact adversely visually on the green spaces at the centre of Dartington.

We cannot support the development of this site while so much other existing office and employment space was still empty e.g. in Webbers Yard including the Lescaze Building, and the A1 offices further down the road etc. However, the Focus Group concluded that the lower part of this site, to a maximum of two hectares, could be held in reserve for later use, once it has been clearly demonstrated that other existing sites are being fully utilised.

On this basis only, up to 2 hectares of this site is put forward as a preferred option site for Employment.

Site 20, Bidwell
Arguments against Bidwell were put forward in “Totnes the Next Decade”. These include:
   –  it is visually prominent. Placing this development on the main approach road to Totnes, Dartington and the      Dartington Estate, will adversely impact on the area’s overall landscape character, and adversely affect        economic activity in both Totnes and Dartington
   –  concerns about additional traffic and congestion, with additional danger to pedestrians and cyclists
   –  it is unacceptably sited next to the new primary school, impacting on its rural surroundings. The       government report, “Every Child’s Future Matters” drew strong conclusions about the negative impact of        pollution, traffic and industrial development on children’s health and well-being.
   –  negative impact on the adjacent church and grave yard, and Broom Park housing estate.
   –  concern that it is sited on a flood plain.
   –  SHDC’s own sustainability assessment indicates “this site does not positively progress any objectives for         sustainability”

Most of all, it has widespread public rejection, including representations against development from Dartington Parish Council, Totnes Town Council, The Strategy Group, Friends of Schumacher College, South Hams Friends of the Earth, Totnes and District Sustainability Group, Transition Town Totnes, the Traffic and Transport Group, Dartingon Primary School, DADD, the Chamber of Commerce, Totnes Development Trust and countless individuals.

This site has been rejected.

Site 21, Puddavine
2.8 hectares on central field area only
The STA assessment identifies this site as having potential constraints. It rates identically to site 22 (part of Meadowside) and also avoids flood issues (community representatives also mark Meadowside down for impact on the approaches to Totnes and Dartington). We are however advised that DCC Highways are concerned about access.

This site, while considered preferable to Meadowside, has not been put forward as a preferred option site for housing development.

Sites 22, 23, 24 Meadowside
5 hectares
Assessed as having potential constraints by the STA on site 22, and a problematic location on sites 23 and 24, community representatives also mark these sites down for their impact on the approaches to Totnes and Dartington Hall estate, which are not currently reflected in the STA.

For these reasons, this site has not been put forward as a preferred option site for housing development.

However, there has long been community support for site 24 to be made available for a self build and/or co-housing project. We would welcome any plan which saw this site used for a 100% affordable self build housing development (and possibly co-housing), as an innovative solution to providing affordable housing. It was noted that this might also help to achieve the affordable housing targets required, if brought forward in conjunction with a proposal for KEVICC.

Site 25, KEVICC Lower Field
5.4 hectares
The STA assesses this site as highly sustainable, but there was much discussion on the many complex issues which surround this site.

To all intents and purposes, a green field site, this area is particularly important as one of the few open, flat sites in Totnes. While it was conceded that the KEVICC proposals would probably enhance playing field provision for organised sports, the site is important for informal use, with a strong visual presence on an approach road to a town which has inadequate levels of open space.

Nonetheless, there are also strong arguments in favour of the improvements which could be made to the school and the playing field provision, benefiting both the school and the wider community, if the scheme goes ahead.

On a majority decision, the Focus Group concluded that a scheme for 150 homes should be supported as a preferred option site subject to:
    a) achieving the normal affordable housing requirements,
   b) achieving higher density development, of 60 units per hectare, to enable the space freed up by this to         contribute additional informal open space.

We will also want to include safeguards re riverside development, leisure facilities, access to the river etc.

Site 26, Dairy Crest
2.8 hectares
The STA assesses this site as sustainable with constraints. However, the position on Dairy Crest is in flux, and complicated by the uncertainty regarding the flood assessment.

In principle, we accept the need for limited housing as a means to securing new jobs on the site which, given its location and excellent transport links, is considered suitable first and foremost for high density employment use. However, to avoid excessive housing development, we will be looking to establish a form of words in the DPD which effectively limits the amount of housing while not setting it so low that redevelopment is made unviable.

We will also want to add safeguards to protect the river frontage.

Site 27, Sheepfield
0.8 hectares
While small, and assessed by the STA as having potential constraints, it is felt that this site could potentially be used for employment activity, mixed use, or housing.

However, there remains a community interest in developing a 100% affordable housing self-build project on this site. Alternatively, it would make an ideal site for allotments.

New site, Beacon Park
1 hectare
This site is deemed highly unsustainable assessment in the STA, which will be discussed further with officers, as it is felt to be unduly severe and some assessments inconsistently applied.

The site has been identified as having the potential to provide a farming “hub” for farming businesses. Accessibility via public transport and for cyclists is felt to be acceptable, and the site has the appropriate road access in place to facilitate growth. This site is therefore recommended as a preferred option site contributing towards the five hectares of new employment land.

New site Marley Head
Marley Head is also deemed highly unsustainable by the STA.

While this too could be challenged, the site was initially nominated to deal with the threat of heavy traffic supporting a B8 employment site. If it is accepted that there is little demand for B8 in the Totnes area, and that there are sites already available on the A38 corridor, then this site is not considered suitable for inclusion in the DPD, and has been discounted.

Back to Housing & the Built Environment Forum

Back to Top