Untitled2

Notes of EbD consultation Group Meeting Friday 5th February 2010

Present: Joanna Abecassis, Dawn Bishop, Jenny Beams, Paul Bennett, Charles Fox, Dave Mitchell, Adrian Porter, Alastair Sutherland, Jill Tomalin, Louis Victory, Cllr Robert Vint, Cllr Tony Whitty, Kate Wilson.

N.B: this was a wide-ranging discussion with areas of overlap. For the benefit of clarity, particularly for those who did not attend, a limited number of points have been moved out of chronological sequence.

1) Introduction
Tony Whitty confirmed the allocation of housing numbers and employment land requirements between the various South Hams towns. In some towns, there is confusion on how to respond, opposition to some of the proposals, and calls for more consultation, given the lack of community participation in the EbD days. Totnes Town Council is currently considering the Totnes proposals and will discuss further in Marc

2) Vision
Now incorporates some of the key elements raised by the community. Some scepticism on its worth, but may help challenge !
Agreed: accepted and affirmed.

3) Sites

T1: Baltic Wharf
Desire to engage with SHDC and developer to come up with an alternative proposal – in the context of an overall Town Plan/Master Plan for Totnes. The Care Home is unpopular, and priority should be given to marine employment and the protection of future marine based transport options.( See also below, point 6 on how to respond or anticipate developments now that the TQ9 application has been turned down).

Agreed: 150 homes acceptable. Seeking conditions relating to
a) no change to development boundary
b) safeguarding marine employment
c) safeguarding future marine/riverside access

T2: KEVICC
Alan confirmed SHDC DPD proposals sit comfortably with current plans for KEVICC. The position on Sheepfield has been included for the first time. Some Town Councillors would prefer the Grove School to stay in a central position in the town, but acknowledge there is no obvious site for this. Concern about nature and extent of A385 Corridor Management Scheme led to discussion on process, consistency of application, and priorities for 106 money. Concern also about imprecise use of language e.g. “about” and “up to”. Some flexibility is needed but in some instances parameters need to be set.

Action: Louis to find out more at meeting next week with DCC Highways re A385 scheme, and report back.
Agreed: 110 homes generally accepted (but FoE and SoFA remain opposed due to lack of flat open space provision in the town). No opposition to homes on Sheepfield, in principle, or moving the Grove School. Desire for master plan to cover this area.

T3: Southern Area and Market Square

T3: Southern Area
Dave reported that the proposal bears little relation to previous discussions and commitments on this site. Phase two of the Southern Area Development was never more than sketchy ideas; the area was not included in the EbD discussions; John Tucker had promised similar levels of community consultation and involvement for future phases during phase 1. He has written to SHDC seeking consultation as a matter of urgency.

Should we seek further development of proposals in a Supplementary Planning Document? Kate clarified that these do not need to be consulted upon. There is a concern that any Supplementary documents may need to be prepared urgently, if they are viewed as part of the submission to the Inspector.

Action: Tony and Jill to write joint letter to SHDC as a matter of urgency to support Dave’s correspondence, seeking community consultation as a key part in the development of a supplementary planning document.

T3: Grove School
Agreed: move approved, also desire for better youth facilities on this site.

T3: Market Square
Tony confirmed that efforts to involve the Library in redevelopment plans have failed, and the Civic Hall redevelopment is effectively at a dead end. It appears that any future development is not imminent.

The group reaffirmed the importance of any development of the Market Square being design dependent.

The need for an integrated master plan covering all three elements of T3 led to a discussion on how to secure such a plan. We need to secure an overall master plan, within which sub-plans for key areas can be developed. From this, 106 priorities should be agreed and consistently implemented. The government offers £4.5m in Planning Aid, and we need to access expertise. Some concern about capability and process of PFBE.

Action: Jill/ Tony to contact Planning Aid for more information on how the development of a Master plan could be achieved.

Agreed: our position on the Market Square remains unchanged. Any decisions to support development of this area will be design dependent, and conditional
    a) the footprint of space available for the Market, including the rear car park, must not be reduced
    b) the implementation of the development must be possible in a way which does not threaten the livelihood         of the market traders while development is undertaken
    c) the community would need to be persuaded of the contribution of homes, offices etc to the viability of the         scheme and for the benefit of the area.

Consequently, while we accept that this can be designated as a mixed use area, we do not want to see any figure for dwellings included on this site as part of the DPD, to avoid any pressure to achieve the stipulated level in the future.

T4: Dairy Crest
Tony reported that Dairy Crest have employed an architect to assess the value of the site prior to disposal. There is uncertainty about the land levels, and therefore the flood risk categorisation. Confirmed need for larger master plan which includes this key site, and to create a major transport hub around the station, which is the key asset here and strategically important. Emphasis to remain on high quality employment use, but no opposition to 30 dwellings provided they are used to facilitate employment development.

Agreed: 30 homes acceptable provided they contribute to delivering employment.
Any scheme must deliver high quality employment. A bigger number of dwellings would be acceptable if
    a) the flooding issue can be resolved
    b) the need to develop a key transport hub at the station can be delivered
    c) they contribute to the development of the site for employment use

T5/6: Land at Dartington Lane/Ashburton Road
Our position remains unchanged. There is opposition to development on the Plantation site and land at Ashburton Road, as there was previously to the Meadowside development, because
    a) it encroaches on the green space separating Dartington and Totnes
    b) it is a key “gateway” site
    c) it impacts adversely on the approach to the Dartington Estate.

This was always our “least good” site, and there are other sites which would do far less damage. Regrettably, beyond designating sites in the earlier or late phase of the DPD, there is no other way to sequentially priorities sites. See below for discussion of alternative sites.

Agreed: overall development is opposed on land at Ashburton Road and in the Dartington Plantation. There is no objection to 10 dwellings on the small plot of land at Lane End Field.

T7: Riverside
Supported, subject to development of lower part of site only. Could site be defined as lower field only, to secure greater clarity? Could greater density of building lessen the overall extent of building in accordance with the community wishes? If flooding assessments prove questionable, then the larger scale redevelopment of Steamer Quay and this site should be brought forward once more as a preferred site.

Agreed: supported, as before, provided that the development remains only on the lower part of the site, and subject to the various points made here being included in our consultation response.

T8: Borough Park
All agreed necessity of protecting flat sporting and informal play space. Losing any part of the green space will impact adversely on future flexibility. The strip adjacent to the Railway station is of strategic importance however. Losing open space here, to be in some way compensated for by gaining space in the Bourton Lane development, is not acceptable. If the site were extended to include the Pavilion and adjacent car parks, some development might become possible – the Pavilion is recognised to be in need of major work (n.b. the land for the line of homes behind Borough Park was sold off to help pay for the Pavilion in the first place).

Agreed: as with the Market Square, any consideration of development on Borough Park is design dependent and conditional on there being no reduction in the open space given over to sporting use and informal play. Consequently, we do not wish to see any specified number of homes on this site, either.

Support for some development, while remaining design dependent, may be forthcoming if the site were extended to include the Pavilion and adjacent car parks.

T9: Bourton Lane
Would need compulsory purchase of two homes. One previously had planning permission for development which has lapsed. Approval of this site should not be taken as being the first step towards the development of the larger Bourton Valley. Currently only ten dwellings – could this be developed more densely?

Agreed: accepted as suitable for a small housing development.

4) Alternative Proposals

If the group wishes to reject development of 20 dwellings at the Market Square, 50 dwellings on T6: Land at Ashburton Road, and 25 homes on T8: Borough Park, plus two hectares of employment land on T5: Land at Dartington Lane, then we need to find alternatives.

The Town Council is considering sites at the top of Bridgetown (as per EbD discussions) and in Follaton.

The Housing and Built Environment Forum has made a proposal that these developments should be re-sited on the land running along Plymouth Road, from Broomborough, through Follaton Bungalows, to Follaton House (car park) – but not the arboretum. The arguments in favour of development here are
    a) these sites were recognised as suitable by the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment when         considering place making principles (and thus will have the maximum chance of success through this         “endorsement”),
    b) they address the issues which cause the opposition to development on “Meadowside” in previous         consultation i.e. they do not impact on key approaches to Totnes or the Dartington Estate, nor erode         precious green field sites between Totnes and Dartington.
    c) They maintain a consistent position taken in both the initial consultation (which opposed Meadowside)         and the Focus Group, (which first identified Follaton Bungalows as a suitable site). SHDC has ignored         these consultation responses.
    d) The sites contribute to sustainable development, being within easy walking distance of the centre of         town.

There may be room to accommodate some of the need by allocating a greater number of dwellings on the Bourton Lane site.

Clearly, we need to do more work to assess the viability of any proposals to deliver the requisite number of dwellings and employment land.

The DPD proposals make no mention of developing the Babbage Road Industrial Estate (unlike Dartington where such upgrades are proposed for Webber’s Yard). This may be due to flooding considerations?

5) Dartington Issues

Tony confirmed that Dartington Parish Council are willing to support our conclusions on the sites being considered for the development of Totnes which fall within the Dartington Parish boundary.

Chris Edwards (DADD)has pointed out that the orientation of the site proposed for development opposite Webber’s Yard in Dartington has now turned 90 degrees since that consultation took place. Adrian understood that there may be a possible covenant on this, which may explain it.

Agreed: the group wishes to support Dartington residents and Council in achieving the desired orientation.

Action: Tony to go back to Chris and Brian Evans to express our support and let them know what our initial conclusions have been re Ashburton Road and Dartington Plantation sites.

6) Baltic Wharf – Response to TQ9’s planning permission being refused.

n.b.Cllr Robert Vint did not take part in this discussion, given his position on the Development Control Committee.

Paul Bennett has already written to Development Control requesting that SHDC appoint outside planning consultants in the event of an appeal by TQ9. Jill Tomalin has contacted TQ9 to indicate our willingness to help develop alternative proposals. Charles Fox lamented the role of the Regional Panel in not taking account of local views over TQ9’s application, and that of English Heritage in not considering the wider impacton the town which the development would have. He will be liaising with EH and CABE as Chair of the Preservation Trust. TAG are considering whether to “regularise” their formation and modus operandi.

There was general agreement that we now need to press for the appointment of consultants and the development of a design brief for this site, in which the community can be involved, both to pre-empt an appeal and to take development of this site forwards. Baltic Wharf is seen as a precedent both for planning and for community involvement, but we must ensure that action on Baltic Wharf is not delayed in the larger, slower DPD timetable, as it is potentially urgent.

Agreed: a subgroup comprising Louis (TAG), Paul (TotSoc), Don Lang (TTT) and Charles (Totnes Preservation Trust) should develop a plan for going forward.

Action: this group and Tony Whitty should draft a joint letter from Tony(TTC) and Jill(Strategy Group) to Alan Robinson seeking the appointment of consultants.

7) Development Control Document

The document circulated by Tony created some confusion with no one clear as to what it referred to. If it is the Development Control Core Policies Document, then only TTT are known to have responded, and can therefore seek to participate in the Inspection discussions in March. The deadline for expressing an interest in participating is today 5th February.

Action: Jill to phone through to Adrian the contact name at SHDC so that he can establish the position and secure a place for TTT if appropriate.

Back to Housing & Built Environment