Minutes of the Housing and Built Environment Forum Meeting
Thursday 12th May 2011
Present: all present were encouraged to give contact details to enable future participation and information sharing.
1. Introduction
Jill Tomalin, current coordinator of the forum, welcomed all present. She said that:
a) the forum began three years ago to coordinate a joint response to SHDC planning documents for Totnes (the DPD), alongside the Town Council. It initially comprised groups already responding individually to the DPD
b) substantial building is forecast on multiple sites in Totnes, and the need for an open, widely inclusive permanent forum is strong. Now seeking stronger and more engaged ways of working with SHDC and developers. An open invitation was proffered to developers, SHDC or DCC councillors and Council officers (and the press) who are welcome at all times. The forum also hopes to continue working closely with the Town Council, and with the Traffic and Transport forum, on planning issues.
c) It is hoped the Forum can provide:
i) a coordinating facility for community involvement on planning matters, housing and the public realm, and
ii) to share information and maximise community resources (people knowledge and skills) while minimising duplication
d) Terms of Reference have been drawn up, to be debated and agreed at the next meeting which will act as an AGM. Members will want to develop how the Forum works as it progresses.
2. Presentation by Paul Tyler, Major Developments and Projects Manager for SHDC
(Click here to see the accompanying presentation slides)
2.1 Paul began with a synopsis of the context in which master plans will be developed for Totnes. Key elements were:
a) Totnes population c8000, significant centre with key issues including affordable housing and employment needs
b) The DPD has determined which sites are to be developed.
c) The joint community response was helpful to the DPD process in collating views and representing them at the Inspection. Now has experience of working with the Forum, which is a good basis for going forward.
d) The DPD does not go into detail on individual sites or localities – master planning needs to address this.
e) The DPD provides for 470 homes pre 2016, and 180 post 2016, plus 4.1 ha of employment land pre 2016 and 0.3ha after. This represents a population increase of c1100 people. The NW Quadrant will see 110 homes by 2016, plus 2 ha of employment land, and a further 40 homes and 0.3ha of employment land post 2016.
f) Strategic issues which need to be addressed include highways and congestion, air quality, employment and affordable housing.
g) The NW Quadrant sites comprise
i) Dairy Crest T4, a need for employment regeneration and housing to facilitate this. Also key gateway site alongside the railway station.
ii) KEVICC T2, the relocation of the Grove School is a priority, also dwellings. Sports facilities to be enhanced, and some dwellings on the Sheepfield site.
iii) Dartington Plantation and Puddavine sites, T5 and T6, will see 2ha of employment land and 50 homes.
iv) All these sites will have an impact on the crucial A385; the needs of the existing Swallowfields development are not well served, and there is an opportunity to create a new “neighbourhood”.
h) Once developed, elements remain, long term, so it is crucial not to miss opportunities.
2.2 Paul shared the master plan definition given in the DPD: it is crucial that all key stakeholders, including the community, participate in the process. He explained that
i) guidance has been developed by SHDC with CABE in the form of the Collaborative Masterplanning Template, to be published shortly. Totnes NW Quadrant and St Anne’s Chapel will act as testing grounds for the process, which may become a Supplementary Planning Document. Collaboration and communication are the keys.
j) The process can be divided into six key stages:
i) Start up – setting up a steering group/forum including community reps, developers, professional advisers etc
ii) Diagnosis – gathering relevant information
iii) Co-discovery – creating a Vision and setting objectives
iv) Co-design – developing a realistic Masterplan which seeks to resolve issues and realise opportunities
v) Legacy – resolving post development and ongoing management including sustainability of facilities
vi) Co-delivery – clear communication and cooperation during planning application and development phases
k) SHDC will instigate the NW Quadrant masterplanning process. They will be helping community developers and professional representatives to create a Steering group which will coordinate and administer the process. Some financial element to enable facilitation of this will be sought.
l) The likely timetable is:
i) June-July create steering group
ii) September – November – participate in master planning
iii) December 2011 – produce report
n.b. There is a need to complete quickly to facilitate development of homes etc. However, the Steering Group will ultimately determine the timetable.
2.3 Questions for Paul
Question: What is the most valuable thing the Town Council and H&BE Forum can contribute?
Answer: The Forum provides a useful umbrella group to aid community involvement, the TC also.
( Jill observed the TC had been particularly effective in publicising the process and gathering views in open meetings etc)
Q. What is the Role for DCC Highways?
A. Will be a key player, like other statutory bodies. DCC is keen to be involved as part of its current sustainable travel plan work in Totnes.
Q. What about other infrastructure needs?
A. They will arise through the masterplanning process, in the co-discovery stage.
Q Could the planning be “thrown out” by additional windfall sites?
A. Windfall sites can come forward at any time. However, the plan is not likely to be so “fine grained” as to be impacted upon by any unanticipated windfall sites.
Comment: Community has considerable experience now in community engagement, working with SHDC etc, which could be drawn on.e.g. Leechwell Garden, DPD etc
A. Yes, the learning is needed and welcome.
Comment: Community reps received only seven days notice of a meeting re Culverdale recently, which runs only in the afternoon, and thus no good for working people. This is insufficient.
Comment: It is import to get the Steering Group right. Thought is needed on how to secure community reps, and possible criteria.
It was agreed the Forum can advise on this based on previous experience and help to coordinate this openly.
Q The DPD sites are specific. Could this change during master planning?
A. While the sites are set, issues may emerge via master planning which would need to be addressed, so some change is possible.
Q What is “Affordable Housing”?
A. Anything which is less than the market rate – this could cover purchased homes, shared ownership or pure rental.
Q. Having attended the CABE sessions, it is clear the template is for individual sites only. There appears to be no mechanism to balance issues across sites. Is this the case?
A. Planning recognises special needs here in Totnes, as a larger settlement. Aim is to produce a successful new neighbourhood in NW Quadrant. Changes will occur only in response to new evidence and analysis.
Comment: it remains crucial that a broad spectrum of people and views are involved in developing plans. Also that the planning covers the whole needs of the town.
Q. Will new Local Enterprise Partnerships have an impact on the plans?
A. The debate on where to develop is now over. The emphasis is on delivery at this point.
Q The Affordable Housing element at Culverdale specifies only 50% for local Totnes people. Will this apply across other sites?
A. The answer to this is not known. A response will be circulated via the H&BE Forum (see below).
(Robert Vint indicated that the Affordable Housing DPD may give more information)
[Postcript: the response from SHDC’s Liam Redding reads:
Ensuring local people have a greater priority for new housing has been a key issue for many communities. Historically, only small rural exception sites have had a local allocation policy which restricts the homes to people who live, work or have strong local connection. All other developments were provided to qualifying applicants, which included residents from the town and Parish but typically also residents from elsewhere in the South Hams. Recent changes to government guidance have allowed the Council to be much more flexible in how we allocate housing. The Council have taken this opportunity and applied these new flexibilities through a new Local Allocations Policy to ensure at that least 50% of all new homes are available to people from within the parish or town where the housing is being built. It should be noted that 50% is the minimum and if there is sufficient demand, up to 100% will be provided to local people. This new approach is a significant improvement to the old system and aims to ensure that local people have a much greater opportunity to be housed locally. A copy of the Local Allocations Policy is available at www.southhams.gov.uk/index/residents_index/ksp_housing/ksp_housing-policies-strategies.htm ]
3. Presentation by Simon Collier (WYG Planning Consultant) and Mark Crosby (Consensus) re Riverside Development (with Richard Ayres of Linden Homes and Ian Richardson)
3.1 Simon first indicated the geography of the Riverside site, adopted in the DPD in February – its sloping nature, its current agricultural use, its position as a gateway site for those coming up the river. The plans anticipate c100 dwellings and 2ha of employment land, with additional provision for play and other amenities. He acknowledged the urgency to develop the site to secure new housing.
In response to a question from the floor, he confirmed that there is currently no information on the possible availability of Parker’s Barn as part of the development, so he is currently talking on the basis that it will not be included. (It was then suggested that this site is on the DCC sites disposal list for Totnes).
3.2 Mark then set out these objectives:
a) getting all views, collating and recording them;
b) helping Linden Homes understand and address them; and
c) demonstrating how these have evolved and been responded to.
He indicated this will be supported by
d) stating with clarity what is being consulted on and how;
e) providing information on what is involved in planning, and specialist language etc
f) being realistic, managing expectations, and bringing clarity about what can be influenced and when.
To date, he has
g) met with SHDC Councillors and officers
h) met with local residents who live near the site informally recently to provide “early signposts”
i) met with those involved in seeking a possible new Scout Hut/headquarters.
He provided a diagram of steps to be taken, placing priority on those who share a boundary with the site. These were
1) identifying constraints and opportunities
(using the H&BE Forum as a community hub and sounding board)
2) Drafting a Masterplan
(presenting conclusions at every stage)
3) Agreeing the Masterplan and the Planning Application
4) Reserve Matters
(this would be dealt with later)
All stages would be subject to regular points of review.
3.3 Questions
Q.You have not made mention of a Steering Group....
A. Yes, there will be a steering group set up.
Q. As discussed earlier, we have plenty of experience of consultation. Will the discovery stage review existing material?
A. Yes, we will assemble a team to bring together the factual things which are already known.
Q. Will a design architect be retained during the construction phase?
A. Normally, Linden Homes do not have one on site. However, this could be reviewed.
Comment: the role of the consultant was challenged, suggesting that he seemed to be largely a PR person. Money could better be spent on providing a facilitator to the community (or at the expense of the proposed contribution to the A385)
Comment: having attended the Culverdale meeting, where the speaker had already suggested the use of the template as the basis for consultation, she was disappointed not to see this taken up.
Comment: working informally with small groups rather than making consultation open to all is potentially divisive. Public consultation needs to start with an open meeting.
A. Mark indicated that the initial meeting held with local residents had intended to be an informal exploration of likely issues to assist in planning the consultation process.
Comment: a member of the Lansdown Park group felt communication had been poor. Local people had wanted to attend the first meeting, and spread the word. There was no paperwork and no response to queries. A letter has now been sent to the Duke of Somerset about community concerns and issues. The speaker would have liked a more democratic approach. Residents face four years of disruption.
Q. Could we have information on previous developments undertaken by Linden Homes?
n.b. this question was left unanswered at the meeting and has been put to Mark subsequently.
Finally, the chair commented that it would perhaps be best to acknowledge that consultation hasn’t properly started yet, and that a clearly laid out consultation plan is needed. The H&BE Forum would be very willing to circulate the plan to all present as soon as it was made available. Mark Crosby indicated consultation is likely to start in June.
4. Future meetings (this agenda item was taken out of sequence during the setting up of the second presentation).
4.1 Susan Hannis agreed to represent the forum at the SHDC event to review consultation processes on 18th May.
4.2 Jill indicated that the Dartington Hall Trust has expressed a desire to attend a future Forum meeting to exchange views on priorities and discuss the Vision for Dartington in particular. There is also a need to have an AGM at which terms of reference etc are properly discussed and agreed by Forum members.
It was agreed that
a) The next meeting in June would take the form of an AGM
b) The chair will invite Dartington to attend the subsequent meeting in July.
c) Dates to be confirmed according to the availability of the Dartington team.
The chair thanked the speakers and all those who attended and closed the meeting.
|
