My submissions to the recent round of Planning Reform Proposals by this dastardly government:

Review of the current planning system: published 06.08.20, consultation closed 01.10.20.  This proposed changes to:

• Standard method for calculating housing need – using algorithms
• Delivering First Homes: planning issues
• Threshold for developer contributions
• Permission in principle

Copy of my submission is here:

Dear Sir / Madam,

the Proposed Changes to Current System which sets out the Government’s proposals for measures to improve the effectiveness of the current planning system

My submission is based on my role as a three tier publicly elected Councillor and has been informed further to many conversations I have had with members of the public , fellow Councillors and professional planners who are equally appalled at these proposals.

My submission is set out as summary headlines followed by detailed responses to each of the 4 main proposals which are:

• changes to the standard method for assessing local housing need
• securing of First Homes through developer contributions in the short term until the transition to a new system
• supporting small and medium-sized builders by temporarily lifting the small sites threshold below which developers do not need to contribute to affordable housing
• extending the current Permission in Principle to major development

Summary:

• The proposed algorithm to set the number of new homes needed is arbitrary and in many cases undeliverable. It doesn’t address the actual need for housing – i.e. right place, scale & size and could work against meeting needs or ‘levelling up’. The additional development that would be proposed by these new planning requirements is not sustainable and contrary to the Climate and Ecological Emergency that has been declared all over the UK (and worldwide).
• I oppose the proposed centralisation of decision making on the best mix of affordable housing i.e. the blanket requirement for 25% ‘ first homes’ requirement regardless of  the local situation and identified local need; which in many places is affordable rented housing and social rented housing, especially  council housing
• I also  oppose the proposed change to the threshold for providing affordable rented housing – we need far more affordable homes for people to meet well established local needs, not fewer.
• I believe expanding “permission in principle” is unnecessary: the existing system has gained little benefit to meeting housing needs, can be locally divisive, and has little support among developers and it could continue the worst examples of poor quality development gained through expanded “permitted development” rights, through removing effective local authority control.

1. Proposed changes to the standard method for assessing local housing need leading to unrealistic undeliverable housing numbers

I acknowledge the need to build more housing – but it must be the right housing, of the right scale and size, in the right place. Simply deciding on an algorithm to apportion 300,000 homes per year without any evidence being produced to support this target is doomed to failure – it will be another GCSE grades mistake and create chaos all over again. In many areas, there simply isn’t the land available to build more housing, and dictating a target from on high, without any evidence based guidance, isn’t going to change that.

Furthermore, the focus on the “number of dwellings” does nothing to address the complexity of housing need. There is a world of difference between 300,000 executive homes and 300,000 single flats but the proposed approach does not differentiate between these two extremes. Any targets must be broken down by size of dwelling and identified local housing needs.  To deliver without understanding or responding to the local planning need will simply lead to more unaffordable housing, possibly left unoccupied.

Whilst the use of more up to date population estimates is welcomed, many residents and local councillors are deeply concerned about the adverse impact on communities, the environment and escalating land values, with many reporting that the numbers allocated to their areas as a result of the changes to the standard method are simply not deliverable.  There is a wealth of local creativity that suggests through local community based systems such as Community Land Trusts, Co-Housing and similar ‘bottom-up’ initiatives, a wide range of housing that can respond positively to mitigating the climate and biodiversity crisis; these new national strategic proposals would undermine those proactive initiatives and their potentially wide ranging contributions to the housing market.  

The chance should be taken to clarify the definition of housing units, for example removing ambiguity over ‘co-housing’ which has been exploited in some areas. 

The formula is skewed towards developers and the land industry. It will encourage more development where prices are higher – and profits maximised – which disadvantages the areas where prices are lower. 

For example in the area which I am a three tier locally elected representative, the proposed algorithm suggests an increase multiplier of 2.4 on the annual housing delivery rates of the Joint Local Plan which includes South Hams District Council. Under the current Local Plan, the current rate of new homes delivery in South Hams is 325 per annum, under the proposed algorithm this would rise to 769 new homes each year, adding a total of 10,000 new homes across the Joint Local Plan area (which comprises Plymouth City, West Devon Borough and South Hams District Councils).  This is a shocking increase and I’m aware that the planners in the three planning departments within the Joint Local Plan area will defend vigorously the Joint Local Plan and its robust policies and housing delivery plans as established and approved by all three Local Authorities.

Local Neighbourhood Plans and the Localism Bill under which they have been commissioned and to date their statutory position as a material consideration in planning decisions are also being severely compromised by these proposals.  Many years of extensive community work, local authority supports and substantial amounts of public money have been spent on developing these important local plans, some of which are only just coming into fruition.  To cast asunder their carefully considered local policies and site allocations that meet extensive evidence based local housing and business needs is to disempower local communities at a stroke and undermine their enthusiasm for local involvement and local volunteering which is so very important to the wellbeing of local society and good citizenship.  (The national response to the COVID crisis would have been very severely lacking without the generous and heartfelt response of local volunteers, many of them the same people involved in their local Neighbourhood Plans).

The major increase in delivering and building these new housing developments, the additional new infrastructure and the heating and impact of new households in all these new homes does not take into account the huge carbon footprint which will tip the UK into dangerous levels of additional carbon emissions.  The impact of major loss of wildlife habitat that these new developments and their associated infrastructure will have a substantial adverse impact on wildlife populations which we know have already dramatically decreased by over 60% in the past 50 years, this is not sustainable and will impact on food productions and air quality as well as our wellbeing.  This is blatantly contrary to addressing the climate and ecological crisis that local authorities all over the UK and the wider world as well as the UK Parliament have declared.  It is not compatible with those assurances of parliament or the efforts that local authorities are trying to achieve to save our planet.  Man made Climate change and the Extinction of our wildlife and Biodiversity are real, factually evidenced and need to be mitigated not added to by this reckless set of proposals.

• Loss of Affordable Housing – through affordable housing threshold 

I completely oppose the raising of the small site threshold above 10 homes, as it will directly reduce the amount of affordable housing provided by the planning system.   This level has already been contentious as the previously more beneficial threshold of above 5 homes was sought for rural areas as more complimentary to local schemes. To reduce this requirement on developers to offer the real benefit to the communities,  who are often substantially impacted by large scale development of 10+ new houses in their area, while allowing those developers to retain the additional 25% profit on top of the overall costs of their development, will further erode the opportunity for communities to meet their housing needs. 

There is no evidence provided in the consultation or elsewhere else that this measure will achieve the desired effect of encouraging sites to come forward or benefitting smaller builders and developers. It could have unintended consequences e.g.  developers may start submitting below the new threshold in order to avoid affordable housing obligations.

Existing rules define “small sites” as less than 10 units of housing.  There have been cases where developers artificially split sites into smaller ones to avoid contributions – i.e. the abuse the Government identifies a paragraph 81. developers should not be allowed to break up large sites to enable them to deliver housing numbers just below the proposed increased threshold that avoids affordable housing obligations.

• First Homes 

I welcome the principle of requiring affordable housing and that the Local Planning Authority can increase the affordability discount – on whatever tenure – to up to 50%.  however the authority must be able to determine the mix of types of affordability.

I therefore strongly oppose the ‘First Homes’ proposal to require a percentage of discounted ‘for sale’ on affordable housing. This is a politically driven suggestion, without an evidence base, that favours ownership over renting. It would take away local control and unacceptably centralise decision making on affordable housing priorities without regard for local need. Many of the areas with the greatest housing shortages and the highest prices are in dire need of affordable rented housing, especially social housing and many local authorities are committed to responding to this need. Making a compulsory quota for sale, not affordable rent, will directly impact the ability of local authorities and housing associations to deliver much needed homes for people. 

I also welcome the requirement for first homes to be affordable in perpetuity. However, the ability for banks to remove that requirement where a home is repossessed in order to protect their investment should not be allowed.

In principle, I support the implied (though not explicit) requirement in the proposal for affordable homes to be delivered on-site but this should be strengthened to require that they are ‘tenure blind’ i.e. affordable homes that are mixed with standard ones, ‘pepper-potting’.  Creating ‘ghettos’ of “affordable housing” segregated at the edges of housing developments (and often the closest houses to the road), or “poor doors” directly contravenes the stated aim of “happier, more rooted communities”, and undermines inclusivity in local communities.

• Extension of Permission in Principle – and note on opposition to extension of permitted development

This appears to be an unnecessary tool, with Government evidence that developers have limited understanding of the current system. It would seem to conflict with the aim of the Future Planning white paper to focus on good design and I am aware that many people, including myself have strong concerns it could further weaken councils’ control over planning and further dilute scrutiny. I am concerned that the problems already experienced  with permitted development, could be exacerbated if permission in principle is extended. It also seems to add yet another layer of complexity, with little advantage for developers or neighbourhoods.

There could be an advantage for local authorities in bringing forward land for social housing.  However, the consultation document is so light on detail about how it would be applied that it is hard to comment.

Although not included within this consultation – as it has already been bulldozed through Parliament – we would like to register that I am strongly opposed to the extension of permitted development which evidence shows is already leading  to the slums of the future. 

• Public sector equality duty

I am concerned that no equality impact assessment has been carried out on these proposals as a whole, other than for the First Homes proposal.  Disabled people face many more barriers to adequate housing compared to the general population.  Persons, and particularly households on a low income may also face additional barriers due to reductions in the numbers of affordable units and family homes being required I these proposlas.     

The PSED includes the particular duty to have due regard to the need to take steps to meet the needs of people with disabilities where they differ from the needs of those without disabilities.  It also includes the duty to have due regard to the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding. This may be particularly relevant, for instance, to the arrangements for affordable housing.

The proposal should therefore not be taken forward without a full equality impact assessment.

I hope you will take fully into account all the views and concerns about these destructive and ill-considered proposals that are being raised by submissions to this public consultation.

Please acknowledge receipt of this submission.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr. Jacqi Hodgson

The next Set of new proposals were in White Paper: Planning for the Future:  The White Paper was the Government’s new vision for England’s planning System Submissions were due in 28.10.20. 

The Planning for the Future White Paper consultation proposed reforms of the planning system intended to streamline and modernise, bring a new focus to design and sustainability, improve the system of developer contributions to infrastructure, and ensure more land was available for development where needed.  It identified a series of national challenges including shortage of high-quality homes; combating climate change; improving biodiversity; and, supporting sustainable growth and considered the current planning system adversely impacted on addressing the challenges. A number of issues had been identified, for example, the system was too complex, took too long to adopt a local plan and had lost public trust. 

The paper then set out a series of ambitions for a new planning system such as ambition for the places created, moving democracy forward in the planning process, improve the user experience, support home ownership, increase the supply of land available, support innovative developers and promote the stewardship and improvement of the countryside and environment. The key proposals were described in three pillars; 

· Pillar 1 – planning for development; 

· Pillar 2 – planning for beautiful and sustainable places; and 

· Pillar 3 – planning for infrastructure and connected places 

In terms of the Pillar One proposals these would impact on the Council’s planning functions in three specific ways, identification of Minerals and Waste Sites, Local Issues for Minerals and Waste Sites and Essential Infrastructure Issues and the Report explained these implications in more detail. 

For Pillar Two (planning for beautiful and sustainable places), it was recognised that good design was key to providing development acceptable to local communities and specifically referenced its wider vision for cycling and walking. This was welcomed and the Council, in its role as transportation authority, would have an important role. 

For Pillar three, the issues related to the funding of Essential Infrastructure and a Levy based on Final Value and again the Report explained the issues in more detail. 

In summary, the White Paper raised several specific and technical issues which would have a direct impact on the planning functions, corporate goals and statutory responsibilities of the Council. The Report highlighted the five most significant issues, and it was therefore considered appropriate for officers, in consultation with the Leader, to submit a response to the Government consultation. 

My submission to the public consultation regarding: 

Planning for the Future – White Paper proposals 

……to fundamentally change thecurrent planning system.

Dear Sir / Madam,

My submission is based on my role as a three tier publicly elected Councillor and has been informed further to many conversations I have had with members of the public , fellow Councillors and professional planners who are equally appalled at these proposals.

This submission is set out as summary headlines followed by detailed responses under each of the following headings:

• Climate change & Biodiversity
• Health, Wellbeing and A right to local Green Space
• Use of land and meeting everyone’s housing needs
• Zoning
• Impact on Neighbourhood Plans
• Public sector equality duty
• Community Views and others

Summary

This White Paper which sets out the Government’s proposals for changes to the current planning system, will not meet the real housing needs, but instead will bring irreversible damage to England, our countryside and wildlife, wreck further damage to the climate and leave a lasting legacy of fields full of low quality housing.   

To some extent I agree the planning system is over-complex, out of date and in need of reform, not providing many people with the homes they need and failing to value the climate, biodiversity or create better communities. However this white paper takes the wrong approach and indeed makes the wrong assumptions about what is actually wrong with the system, failing to look properly at the evidence and to understand  the reasons for failed delivery of housing. It is a missed opportunity to address climate change, rebuild ecosystems and to bring forward proven solutions to the housing crisis including investment in local authority house building and a right to green space. It seeks simple answers without understanding the complexity of the problems. It is not based on the evidence available. It should not have been presented as a White Paper as it is nowhere near ready for legislation – it is entirely lacking in the detail in key areas.

At the heart of these appalling proposals is the further tight centralisation of power and decision making away from local communities and local planners.  This will further decimate and undermine a crafted system that worked pretty well until the disastrous 2012 Planning Policy Framework (well documented as a very poor piece of legislation – that was essentially a ‘developer’s charter’ ) that in turn undermined the Localism Act of 2010 and the Neighbourhood Plans that have followed since.  This new legislation will strip those hard won Neighbourhood Plans of all the rights and promises made by Nick Bowls as Planning Minister at the time.  This is a stab in back for local democracy, good planning and citizen engagement. All it seems for political ends.

I am completely opposed to this over-centralised approach which will damage local democracy and take away local control. This in turn could also damage the reputation and confidence of the standing of property developers and the planning system in the local community. The failures including those around infrastructure provision will have a detrimental effect on good neighbourhoods.

Climate change & Biodiversity

There is a fundamental failure to place carbon reduction front and centre in approach and policies.  Alongside the 10% net gain in biodiversity, there should be an equivalent commitment to carbon reduction.  Every development should not only be carbon neutral but should be generating more power than it uses. The current proposal to be ‘carbon net zero-ready by 2050’ is simply not good enough and fails to meet the 2025 and 2030 targets that many Local authorities are adopting.

The white paper is strangely silent on transport and the all-important need for the planning system to ensure that development takes place only in sustainable places with a commitment to a major shift from car journeys to sustainable modes of transport.  Planning policy has a crucial impact on tackling climate change by building the right homes in the right place, with minimal use of resources for travelling between the concepts of home and work. All new homes should be designed suitably for working from home; also reflecting the quantum change in behaviour that the COVID pandemic has brought to many UK residents and their families.

The replacement system of environmental assessments is deeply concerning, as there is no detail or even sense of importance about making these work better.  A clear straightforward means of assessment that assesses carbon impact, constraints including flooding and air quality issues is essential. 

Whilst the commitment to Biodiversity net gain is welcomed, we need to go much further, acknowledging the urgent need for national policy to address our biodiversity emergency, and catastrophic species loss in which land use – and loss – plays a crucial role. The metrics for Biodiversity net gain need to ensure we fully recognise the importance of preventing the loss of any wild areas and their associated habitats and species, some of which may be known to be endangered and protected. We need to ensure we don’t undermine the vitality and ability to thrive of wildlife, in particular endangered species, or the loss of a long-established habitat such as ancient woodlands, wildlife corridors or wetlands and the value of gardens and scrubby bits of land and brownfield sites for wildlife in assessment of areas for development (not just assuming that for example an ancient woodland or a protected species cannot simply be ‘replaced’ or moved elsewhere).

The design codes proposed seem to be centred around beauty at the expense of sustainability and takes a gimmicky and subjective approach.  Tree-lined streets are welcome but are not enough. In any case they must be the right species in the right place that will survive rising temperatures and not damage pavements.

Current local planning systems are one of the most effective ways for local authorities to tackle climate change. It is vital that the local design codes proposed are not restricted to dealing with appearance and ‘beauty’. Beauty is important but in any case hard to legislate for and can lead to  pastiche. Lack of beauty is important – but not the biggest crisis facing us.

Design codes – both local and national –  must allow for meaningful action on sustainability including local requirements for carbon neutrality in buildings, biodiversity, construction methods, and for infrastructure planning that puts requirements for safe walking, safe cyclingand proximity to public transport at the heart of plans to create liveable communities. They should be genuinely locally driven – this will not be achieved through a centralised system reliant on ‘machine reading’ instead of human planners.

Climate change will not be solved by using a more attractive cladding. 

On Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) reform, the new levy should not only be based on the type of housing but on the carbon and environmental credentials of a building and the development site,  effectively  offering a discount to those developers that build to the highest environmental standards and incentivising them doing the ‘right thing’. 

I am also concerned that the new infrastructure levy as proposed could be siphoned into non-infrastructure spending 

1. Bundling affordable housing in with infrastructure – when it isn’t – could reduce the amount of affordable housing provided (an impact compounded by the proposed changes to the current system – see my previous consultation response to changes to the current planning system)
2. I am opposed to the suggestion that infrastructure levy could be used for other types of spend, unrelated to development and even ‘council tax reduction’ which would simply serve to undermine Local Councils, already severely impacted by the austerity measures of the last decade.

Affordable housing spend must be prioritised, and infrastructure spending must be ring fenced for the infrastructure needed to enable development and especially infrastructure for low carbon living and increased biodiversity e.g.

• Grid upgrades to enable more locally produced renewable energy into the grid
  • Provision of renewable energy including solar PV on all roofs as standard 
  • Rural and urban sustainable drainage (applying natural flood management principles)
  • Climate change adaptation 
  • Safe walking and cycle routes 
  • Public transport 
  • Schools, health & social care facilities
  • Community & cultural space
  • Local shops
  • Parks and green spaces
  • Allotments & other food growing space
  • Tree lined streets
  • Access to nature and wildlife places

If the new Infrastructure Levy is to be based on the value of the development, areas with low house values will lose out. This will work against ‘levelling up’.  There is some justification for higher levies where there are high house values, as the high cost of land will also mean higher costs for providing infrastructure (and affordable housing) but this needs to be balanced.  Any formula should take into account income and affordability, not just be set at a flat rate across the county.

If reform goes ahead we must see:

• Local design codes that need to be able to incorporate areas which are currently set through local planning policy. They should not be purely about appearance and ‘beauty’ but allow rules addressing the climate emergency e.g. zero carbon building, transport design, building waste and packaging and materials minimisation.  
• The energy efficiency standards required at national level are much greater than those proposed – requiring generation – or at the very least fully zero carbon or Passive House standards.
• Rigorous environmental assessment. 
• Meaningful biodiversity net gain which recognises the true and long-term impact of species loss and the nature emergency (where over 60% of wildlife in the UK has been lost in the last 50 years)
• Infrastructure contributions should incentivise high environmental standards.
• The infrastructure levy ring-fenced for infrastructure especially low carbon infrastructure and balanced to ensure levelling up not levelling down.
• The option to include stringent conditions around the process of construction e.g. traffic, dust, noise and site management.

Health, Wellbeing and A right to local Green Space

As outlined in Caroline Lucas MP’sEarly Day Motioncalling on the Government to put democracy, affordability, people’s wellbeing and the right to access nature at the centre of any planning reforms, we recognise  the overwhelming evidence of the link between people’s mental and physical health and the quality of their homes and neighbourhoods, including access to nature. 

These proposals fail to deliver on this essential vision.  A right to access to nature for all should be at the heart of the planning reform process.

The COVID pandemic crisis has provided clear evidence of the need for access to nature for people’s quality of life and mental health.  The impact on society of this pandemic is likely to last a lot longer than this virus and the social restrictions imposed, and there may well be a further pandemic in our globalised world.  The need to address health and well-being has never been so widely acknowledged and the need to respond to this should inform all future planning legislation.

Use of land and meeting everyone’s housing needs

This white paper completely fails to address the real barriers to house building – the need for land value tax, penalties for land-banking, proper resourcing of planning authorities and finance to invest in good quality council housing.

These proposals could lead to a proliferation of greenfield, out of town, car-driven developments which are loved by both the development industry and the land-selling industry because they maximise profits for both these industries. These dormitory housing estates are far less sustainable than brownfield development near existing transport and services and are often unpopular with communities as they take away precious open farmland and green space, as well as harbouring the potential for social isolation problems.  These ‘fields full of new houses’ compromise farming and undermine the ability of the farming community of this country to provide food and have resilience in the supply of food, in particular after BREXIT.

There is also clear evidence that the best way to bring about more and better housing of the kind needed by our communities, whilst at the same time stimulating our economy post COVID, is to make finance available to local authorities to build council housing and this white paper is a wasted opportunity to bring this about.  We need to see a serious national approach to affordable and social housing which also encompasses withdrawing the right to buy legislation (which has failed). A proper definition of affordable housing is also required. The paper aims to provide at least as much affordable housing as under the current system but should be much more ambitious than that – particularly as regards affordable rented housing which is undersupplied at present..

The white paper fails to address the failure of the house building industry to bring forward developments which have been given permission but which developers are failing to build out, instead ‘land banking’ these sites. 

There is a gap around ensuring continued investment in affordable homes provided by community land trusts.  This needs to receive financial support to incentivise these groups to support the delivery of local affordable housing (many of these developments include high environmental standards)

Additionally, I am concerned that the problem of systematic cuts from government leading to continued under-resourcing of local authority planning departments is not acknowledged or addressed. On top of the existing deficit, undertaking wholesale planning reform will require additional resources.  It would probably be more cost efficient and better value to use these resources to fund local authority planning departments to undertake the new requirements.

Additionally, to have any hope of success, substantial reform should not be taking place alongside a period of local government reorganisation (or ‘devolution’ as this is euphemistically being called) as the two things simply aren’t possible alongside each other.

I believe that reforming the planning system as suggested will not result in more houses being built because land prices and the profit to be gained from getting planning permissions on undervalued and under-priced agricultural land are not being addressed. 

The White Paper instead should seek: 

• to reform the Land Compensation Act 1961
• enhanced Compulsory Purchase Orders and land assembly powers for local authorities
• Incentives for developers to go ahead with construction when planning permission is granted, and penalties when they don’t (e.g. time limits, financial penalties) 
• A carefully designed Land Value Tax   
• Investment in council housing and stopping the Right to Buy policy – one counters the other
• Support for community land trusts
• Addressing the deficit in local authority planning services and additional resources to enable reform

Additionally, planning reform must not take place alongside local government reorganisation

Zoning

In principle, there could be advantages to a  more accessible and visual approach to local planning, if this genuinely allows communities to engage better at an earlier stage of the planning process. However, the proposals as set out, entirely lack detail about how this would be achieved and fail to address digital exclusion. Given the proposals were developed without reference to any expert in community involvement (or even a single local planning authority) it is not surprising that in practice the proposals are heavily skewed againsta better deal for communities. 

The principles of localism appear to have been entirely abandoned. Localism needs to be embedded in the reforms, building on the work on Neighbourhood Planning that has been so successful in many parishes and towns around the country, an approach I have been involved in with the town and parishes I represent and continue to strongly support.

There is a multitude of objection to the idea of Zoning and there are many concerns raised by many fellow Councillors, planners and residents I have discussed this paper with about the split into Growth/ Renewal/Protected zones and how this would work in practice. These are not sufficiently nuanced. 

The proposals simply do not put our communities at the heart when it comes to decision making and they tilt the balance of the planning system further in favour of large scale development and land-buying industries. The zones are too broad and do not allow for local circumstances or attempt to complement local geography which always been at the heart of planning.

Growth zones must first pass environmental assessments / sustainability tests and the current proposals do not provide a practical way for this to take place – as there is no allowance in the process for resources needed for these assessments to take place prior to allocation.  

The lack of clarity on the future role of local authority planning committees is a gaping hole in the proposed current reforms.  Whilst the idea of streamlining decision making to help bring forward more homes more quickly sounds positive, this must not be at the expense of the role of local councillors, who know their areas better, in scrutinising development proposals at all stages of the planning process and for public consultation. There needs to be the opportunity for communities’ specific comments on an actual project to be raised so they can be debated when deciding the outcome.

I am concerned that land seems to be viewed simply as a commodity, instead of a precious resource with natural constraints. Land, including open countryside which does not have an official designation such as an AONB, is fundamental to our lives and wildlife. It is key to biodiversity, captures carbon, and is extremely important to local residents and areas that rely on tourism. Additionally, smart land use for renewables, rewilding, food production etc. is key to a low-carbon future. 

The importance of agricultural and food producing land must be understood as essential for food security, which in a world affected by climate change will become increasingly important.

Employment space is largely ignored which is a huge oversight. A joined up approach, that looks beyond just providing housing, should also consider the sustainability of future economies. This should include progressive design such as looking at ‘15 minute neighbourhoods’ or ‘1 job per household’ etc.  Employment space barely features in these new proposals.

Waste and minerals planning is fundamental to sustainable planning legislation and should be reframed in a circular economy approach to ensure waste is treated as a resource.  However, regrettable this seems to have also been forgotten in this White Paper so it is hard to comment.

Putting too much emphasis on a ‘fixed’ set of rules for development set at one particular moment in time means there is then no opportunity to respond through the planning system as and when local or national circumstances change, which they surely will with growing communities, climate changes, flooding and sea level rise and the need to provide more wildlife habitats.  The pandemic should have taught us all about the need to retain the flexibility to adapt to changing times.  Flexibility and adaptability is key to good legislation, which this isn’t.

Conversely, if every single possible future scenario is planned for, design codes will become unworkably complex (as we see in other zoned areas e.g. the 1600 page New York design code) – entirely defeating the point of this reform.  Design Codes as proposed above are simply based on key principles and far easier to be understood and implemented.

This white paper is part of a centralising approach which reduces the power of local government, undermines democracy and which fails to recognise the importance of local communities, geographical areas, history and distinctiveness which should be at the heart of effective placemaking. 

We agree that the proposals would lead to greater complexity (despite the stated desire for simplifying the system) and especially the need for  much greater clarity.  If reform does go ahead some of the key requirements I would support are:

• The designation of Growth and Renewal areas MUST be co-designed with local residents;
• Growth zones must first pass environmental assessments and sustainability tests.
• There needs to be additional categories in the zoning system e.g. protected designations to recognise the importance of open countryside and other undeveloped land separate to land which is otherwise designated as AONB, National Parks etc. 
• There need to be additional categories of land use which will enable local areas to set local targets, for example
  • Renewable energy generation 
  • Food production  
  • Rewilding and nature 
  • Carbon sequestration 
• Involving people better earlier in the process must not exclude the involvement of communities later in the process as locally affected populations, and both local and national circumstances change. 
• Digitally excluded people need to be included.
• Reducing the role of democratically elected councillors in the process would mean less accountability and this must not happen. 
• There needs to be consideration given to the transition period – how do local authorities move from the current system to a future one without a policy void? 
• Local Planning authorities must remain part of the new system
• Neighbourhood Planning must retain the power to determine local preferences for local development.
• Ensuring proper resources for local authorities to implement the new system
  • Recognising and compensating for historic under-resourcing
  • Ensuring local authorities have both the time and the money to provide the evidence base – and the community engagement needed for co-design that would allow them to allocate ‘growth’ zones, otherwise they are just fantasy.

Impact on Neighbourhood Plans

A continuing commitment to Neighbourhood Planning is welcome however  more investment is required to support communities to meet both the technical requirements and enable community participation. This should particularly focus on NPs in urban areas – as the vast proportion of NPs have been developed to date in parished rural areas. Those that are completed and pass a local referendum must retain the provisions and status as originally set out in the Localism Act 2011.

Guidance on housing supply in NP areas should be provided, with a margin for flexibility over or under those numbers to allow especially small sites to be developed. The greater % of CIL to be allocated to an area with a NP should be maintained. The status and weighting of NP’s and their policies in relation to the adopted plan should be clarified as part of any reform.

Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

It is disappointing that no equality impact assessment has been carried out for these proposals. Despite the claim that the Government is “mindful of its responsibility” in relation to its legal duty under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010, and the fact this is described as a White Paper, there is no evidence that any steps have been taken to comply with this duty.  The duty includes a “duty of inquiry” to find out the impact on groups with protected characteristics.

Disabled people face many more barriers than the general population, not just in terms of access to housing but also every aspect of their interface with the built environment.  BAME populations may face additional barriers due to correlation with relative income profiles and to family size.

The PSED includes the particular duty to have due regard to the need to take steps to meet the needs of people with disabilities where they differ from the needs of those without disabilities. The White paper is silent on the integration of accessibility with development.

PSED also includes the duty to have due regard to the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding. This may be particularly relevant, for instance, to the arrangements for affordable housing. Also with regard tof Gypsy and Traveller provision – which in the White Paper has apparently been forgotten. There  should be provision in every area.

The proposals should therefore not be taken forward without a full equality impact assessment.

Community Views and others

The considerable concerns expressed regarding these planning proposals have come from a wide variety of people across the UK.  The Planning Authority at South Hams District Council has expressed grave concerns and a working including Ward Members raised very serious questions about these proposals and the likely substantial negative impact if they come into force.

Many local residents have contacted me about these proposals, voicing concerns in particular stating:

Support for The Wildlife Trusts view that as they stand, current proposals for reform in England (set out in the Planning White Paper) will not lead to a system fit for the future. 

Instead, these reforms could:
– increase nature’s decline;
– fail to integrate nature into people’s lives; and
– undermine the democratic process for local decision-making.

And that:
Planning is devolved, but any system should be about creating and enhancing areas places where we can all lead happier and healthier lives, and enjoy and benefit from the environment around us. But there’s not even a suggestion in the White Paper of including nature or accessible green spaces into the new Growth or Renewal areas! And there would be no change for wildlife in the Protected area, leaving things as they are – an approach which we know is already failing wildlife, and us.

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly for residents, the reforms are aiming to make it easier for people to get involved in planning, so we can be part of shaping the places where we live and work.  Yet there will be little regard to balancing the needs and interests of residents, or opportunity for local opinion in the future without changes to the current proposals.

I’m very aware of the considerable wider criticism to these proposals.  These critics including the chief executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), Victoria Hills, who voiced concern about the approach that the white paper was expected to take and the “planner bashing rhetoric” and argued that sweeping away the planning system was not the right response. The President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Alan Jones, who described these proposals as “shameful”.  The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has criticised “pitiful aims” and called for “robust legal guarantees” and has grave concerns about how community involvement would work within a zoning system and “missed chances” around carbon-neutral, affordable housing.  Shelter, the housing charity has expressed concern at the reforms’ potential impact on social housing.  The Mayor of London says that the changes would be a “disaster for London” and a “nakedly ideological assault on local democracy”.  The Local Government Association said it was vital that new homes should be delivered through a locally-led planning system and communities should retain the right to shape the areas in which they live.

 I hope you will take fully into account all the views and concerns about these destructive and ill-considered proposals that are being responded to and raised by my submission and others to this public consultation.

Please acknowledge receipt of this submission.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr. Jacqi Hodgson

12^thJuly 2018

 

The Planning Inspectorate,                            

Submitted online: enquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk

 Submission regarding APP/K1128/W/18/3192562

 South Hams District Council Planning reference: 0008/17/PAM

 Prior Approval for change of use from redundant reservoir to single dwellingchange of use of the existing building from B8 (storage and distribution) to a dwelling C3 use

 Site location: Bowden Reservoir, Fishchowters Lane, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7RX

 

Dear Sir / Madam,

This is my submission regarding the above planning Appeal.

I wish to state clearly that I support the key reasons for and recommendation of refusal cited in the SHDC Case Officer report, and the decision reached on 3^rdAugust 2017.

Support for local objections

As a local elected public representative and in my own right I also agree with the many reasons for objection as cited by the many residents and bridle path users as cited in the report.  These are valid reasons and none of which have changed.

In particular I reiterate two key reasons given by the SHDC Case Officer Planning Officer in her report:

1. The bridleway proposed for access to the site is unsuitable for vehicles for construction traffic or future residential use, including visits by delivery vehicles. Any such use is likely to damage both the existing surface, to the detriment of bridleway users, and the adjacent banks. It would also create a safety issue for bridleway users, as the lane is tightly bounded, and therefore there is nowhere for users, particularly horse-riders, to take refuge when confronted by an approaching vehicle.  The proposal is therefore not considered acceptable in highways terms in accordance with Schedule2, part 3 Class P 2(b)(ii) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).  The application is therefore refused under W(3)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
2. The proposal would necessitate off-site highway improvement works which would require the consent of third party landowners in order to be carried out, and it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the necessary agreements could be reached.It is also unclear from the information submitted whether the highway improvement works would constitute operational development in their own right.  Such operational development would extend solely beyond the change of use of a building permitted under Class P.  The application is therefore refused under W(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (general Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

 

Personal Experience as a regular user of Fishchowters Lane.

Until recently I was, in my private capacity a regular user of Fishchowters Lane.  I used a field along the lane to keep two donkeys for over eight years.  During that time my husband and I used Fishschowters on a daily basis to feed and look after the donkeys.  Through that experience I am very aware of the extensive use of the lane by local residents walking from Totnes to Higher Ashprington, dog-walkers, runners (including planned cross-country events) as well as equine riders. People of all ages use that important route for recreation and non-vehicular access.

Without reservation I restate my continued objection to this planning application and the appeal that has been lodged.  I would like the opportunity to represent the local residents who object to this planning application if deemed appropriate if there is an oral hearing of this appeal.

Yours faithfully,

 

Jacqi Hodgson

Cllr. Jacqi Hodgson

 

 

DCC and Charity Libraries Unlimited (which is commissioned to run Devon’s Libraries) are considering ways to increase the take up in rural areas in order to reach more people who can’t easily access Devon’s 50 public libraries.  They have launched a review to invite ideas and suggestions to help shape the design of an outreach service that better meets the needs of everyone and offers better access to the wider range of library services.  People can take part in the consultation by visiting devon.cc/librariesoutreach   The consultation can be completed online or paper copies are available at libraries. The deadline for responses is 28^thJuly 2018

18^thJune 2018

To Whom it May Concern

Response to SHDC A Clean Air Strategy for south Hams and West Devon

Incorporating comments regarding the Air Quality Action Plan for Totnes

Dear Sir / Madam,

I wish to make the following submission with regard to the current public consultation on the above document.  My points are made with reference to the formatting within the document:

Executive Summary:

P5. It is clear from this summary, that SHDC accepts there is a problem, that it will continue to monitor air quality, however it is substantially lacking in any substantial practical actions that are likely to lead to turning the tide on air quality in the Air Quality Management Areas.

The aspirations to promote the uptake of Ultra Low Emission Vehicles with the objective of a zero-emission car and truck fleet by 2050 is laudable but unlikely to have a major impact, certainly not in the short term and demonstrates the usual lean towards the myth that technology will save us. Technology does certainly make a difference to our lives (anyone who remembers times pre-email, internet and indeed computers is likely to agree with this), but thinking that technology will reduce our addiction to the motor car and that the majority of users will have electric cars in the next 20 years is unlikely in the current wave of austerity.

So the usual requirements remain if we are really serious about reducing traffic congestion and air pollution caused by motorized vehicles belching out NOx and a host of other noxious fumes while they consume vast quantities of finite fossil fuels and contribute to chaotic climate change. The thrust of this Clean Air Strategy should be phased investment in infrastructure that enables, encourages and supports sustainable transport modal change.  Regrettably there is not much of that in this strategy or the AQAP for Totnes and environ.

 To Inform, educate and promote Behaviour Change in the public to walk, cycle and use public transport more should not only be includedin this list, but topof the list of aims and objectives.

P7. The shortlist of options for Totnes should include an outline  programe for modal change: better pedestrian and cycling links, crossings and pathways and make reference to the Totnes Town Council Transport Policy and Strategy with its comprehensive programme of improvement projects proposed by Totnes on the Move in 2014.

General Comments on this document:

• There seems to be a complete disconnect between community, town and parish initiatives that have been worked on to date; i.e. Totnes on the Move Community Board 2010 – 2016, Totnes Town Council Transport Strategy and Policy and Schemes, Neighbourhood Plans, local initiatives such as Transition Town Totnes Energy Descent Action Plan, The Totnes to Littlehempston Cycle group.
• The main financial investment proposed for the Totnes area seems to be from new privately funded developments rather than from the public purse. This is discussed more fully below

Failure to acknowledge or include public (LSTF) DCC funded work by Totnes on the Move

The lack of any mention of working with the Town Council as an active potential partner that has developed and consulted on a very detailed Transportation policy, strategy and schedule of projects further to the work of (central government funded) Totnes on the Move (TOTM) is an extraordinary omission.  This work was clearly referred to in the SHDC 2009 Air Quality Management Plan,but now the SHDC AQMP ignores the work of TOTM and its fully considered outcomes (that have been reviewed and were welcomed by South Hams HATOC in 2014).  The TOTM work was carried out from 2010 – 2016 mainly by volunteers with Local Sustainable Transport Funds (LSTF National Government award) with funded administrative support through Devon County Council.  Almost a quarter of a million pounds was apparently spent in Totnes, a small part of the >£3M award from central government to DCC (which was for sustainable transport initiatives in Exeter, Newton Abbott and Totnes).

Despite funding this work, Devon County Council has also ignored the proposals from Totnes on the Move even as far back as 2011 when it produced its DCC Local Transport Plan Devon & Torbay Strategy 2011-2026.  This document made all the right noises in its aspirations around improvements to change public behaviours, and improve pedestrian and cycle links and work with communities (vision p 14), however by page 86 when it talks about Market and Coastal towns, while its vision for that sub section supports the earlier aims and indeed Transition Town initiatives are mentioned and “schemes that are low cost and high value, and that deliver solutions identified by the community will be prioritized” (page 91), but when the nitty gritty of Targeted Capital Interventions (page 97), the only mention for South Hams is Deep Lane Improvements to mitigate the impact of development at Langage and Sherford, completely missing out any mention of any South Hams town in particular Totnes, a town that has consistently put forward proposals for improvement.

This ignoring the work of Totnes on the Move continues in the next DCC document in 2012 with DCC Totnes Transport Strategy (ref B2300170/A385STRA/0003), that DCC commissioned Jacobs to produce in December 2012,a document that Totnes TC (or any others) were not consulted on and missed many of the good proposals then being developed by Totnes on the Move with LSTF via DCC funded support.

The contradictions and seemingly deliberately ignored work that could and should have informedDCCs own 2017 Transport Infrastructure Plan – Delivering Growth to 2030illustrates this clear omission further.  In the latter plan, South Hams is the only District Council area to notbe named in the listings, there is simply one entry (p19) for investment in the entire period of this plan and that is for the A3121 Avonwick to Ermington with £9.5M allocated for safety schemes.  Yet Totnes is known to be the fourth most congested town in Devon and a significant amount of development growth has been proposed there and in neighbouring Dartington.

To consistently ignore then and now the carefully considered and publicly approved outcomes of Totnes on the Move and Totnes Town Council policies and proposals that was funded as part of a central government LSTF project should be the subject of an investigation into whether these public funds were misused by DCC.  Like many other towns and its neighbouring parishes, Totnes is using the TOTM proposals to inform its neighbourhood plan, but despite the best intentions of all concerned, if no public money (i.e. from taxes paid by local people into the public purse) then the chance of funding for any of the sustainable transport initiatives that will improve air quality in Totnes are unlikely to go ahead.

Air Quality Action Plan for Totnes

The above critique of the Clean Air Strategy also applies to the Air Quality Action Plan for Totnes as Totnes Town Council has publicly consulted on and included the proposals put forward by Totnes on the Move and produced this as Totnes Town Council Transport Policy and Strategy which includes a series of proposals that would provide improvements to sustainable transportation in and around the town and its connections with the surrounding parishes and neighbouring towns and villages.

Totnes Town Council Transport Policy and Strategy 2014 is attached.  I propose that these proposals are used to inform the Air Quality Action Plan for Totnes.

Essentially to improve air quality in Totnes town and environ measures that make it safer and more desirable to walk, cycle or use public transport rather than use the car should be the focus of this AQAP.

Option 1

Measures that reduce local car use can be addressed by increasing safety for pedestrians and cyclists.  An increase in the number of pedestrian crossings along the A 385, A384, A381 could have a significant impact on keeping cars moving but slowly and ready to stop for pedestrians in the busier residential and village and town centres.

This should be coupled with 20mph speed limits in all residential areas and on the main routes passing through town and village centres.  (This measure is supported by all the neighbourhood plans being developed in these areas)

Changes (as proposed in Option 1) to pedestrian crossings i.e. reducing the time that cars need to wait should only be carried out after additional pedestrian crossings have been added as this will increase the safety and likelihood of people walking rather than driving in this area.  This would also support the use of Lollipop Safety officers to help school children cross the road. It is unclear of the four pedestrian crossings with lights along the A385 through Bridgetown is referred to in the document (n.b. Station Road is Bridgetown one side and Totnes Town the other)

The pedestrian and cycle underpass from the railway station to Castle Street (and possibly extending as a pedestrian and cycle way through to Follaton) needs to be developed asap.  I understand from network Rail that there is serious interest in this non-vehicular route and that this would be possible within the next four years when Network Rail will be replacing and possibly relocating their signal boxes (one of which has been the barrier to this development to date).

Additional safe pedestrian crossings are needed around Totnes and into Dartington along the A385.  The Pedestrian Crossing between Origins and the Lascaze Building in Dartington was agreed as part of the Origins development and included a built out traffic calming measure, however I gather that two Highways officers changed this for the 106 agreement and it has not been delivered. A further pedestrian crossing nearer to Shinners Bridge to link the footpath that leads to five schools in the village centre and the post office and footpaths to the Cott area would increase safety and reduce car use in Dartington.

Additional Pedestrian Crossings at the traffic lights at the junction of Plymouth Road and the A381 are urgently needed as the footpath leading from Follaton (that is used by many people including children on a daily basis and often in the rush hour) does not lead to a pedestrian crossing into town. There need to be additional pedestrian lights on the Plymouth Road (west side) and A 3981 (north side) to create a safe route into town from Follaton.

A further pedestrian crossing west along the Plymouth Road between Follaton House car park and the new Follaton Oak development and the main residential area of Follaton and Plymouth Road is needed.  Those residents now living at Follaton Oak have no safe route to the Community Centre and shop at Follaton, similarly residents at Follaton have no safe pedestrian access to services at Follation House or the park and ride that is sometimes established for seasonal markets and events.

• It is my view that the Air Quality impact of Option 1 with these additional pedestrian crossings as I’ve suggested could be High
• I would further suggest that the cost effectivenessof increasing the number of pedestrian crossings and making town and village centres safer for pedestrians would be High

 

Option 2

I strongly object to the option 2 of a By Pass put forward but then dismissed as not popular or fundable.  The comparative costings of such a proposal when compared to park and ride or other significant options that could support significant behavioural change are large.  To put this unsupported option in is confusing, divisive and unhelpful.

• It is my view that the Air Quality impact of Option 2 is a minus figureas not only are the emissions of current traffic remaining the same, although they would be spread across a wider area, the effect of opening up more convenient and potentially faster routes for traffic is to attract more traffic as the congestion would cease to be a deterrent.
• I would anticipate that the Cost Effectiveness of a by-pass would be Low to minus (as this would also require additional road maintenance)
• However the Cost Effectiveness of Park and Ride being set up between 0.5. and 1mile of ach of the main routs leading into Totnes could have a significant impact on congestion and air quality in the town centre and potentially have a cost effectiveness of HIgh

 

Option 3

With regard to the comments about trains, this is completely contradicted by DCC’s own submission to the franchise applications of GWR in January of this year further to a meeting of Devon & Exeter Rail Working Party (17.1.18) of which I am a Member. It was clearly agreed at that meeting that increased rolling stock for passengers was needed and that this would include better out of hours services as well as better local services between Exeter and Plymouth.  Points were also made about increasing the use of rail by freight.  These points were included in the formal submission.

Promotion of public transport alternatives could be done by improving the links and signage, but most strongly of all by DCC making representations to the Government and requests to the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) to invest some of the public funds they administer on additional public transport services.

I am surprised that there is no mention of Bob the Bus, our community bus for a number of years that has recently increased its routes and services.  Bob the Bus would be well placed to support park and Ride services.

In an area with a relatively higher proportion of older residents and less money available to service rural roads, active promotion of public transport is essential not only for improvements to access for residents but also to reduce the use of cars.

I believe that the Air Quality Impact of option 3 could be 4 leading to 5 in the long term if services were improved.

In my view the Cost Effectiveness of using more creative ways to promote and increase public transport services and usage could be Medium to High

 

Option 4

At present Ultra Low Emission Vehicles i.e. in this context electric cars rely on rechargeable batteries made with lithium.  There is a finite amount of Lithium available in this world (it comes from areas where there has been an impact with a large meteorite) and that is not enough to provide for all vehicles currently in use to be replaced with electric models.  With the economic downturn replacement car purchase is reduced and electric cars require a significant investment that will be well beyond the finance of many local residents.

It is welcomed that electric charging points are proposed, albeit most likely for a more limited clientele.  However it would make more economic sense to install these as solar powered charging points and thus help mitigate climate change too.  On that basis it would be worthwhile considering the economic costings of installing solar powered charging points in car parks that electric bikes and electric motor bikes can also recharge at.

• I would agree that the Air Quality Impact of Option 4 is 4/5, but this could be improved to 5 if a solar powered charger that could serve a wider variety of vehicles was installed.
• I would also agree that the cost effectiveness of option 4 would be medium to very high and this would include using solar power as the cost of linking to a nearby grid supply can be expensive.

 

Option 5

The proposal for Green Travel Vouchers is essentially a way to get Developers to provide a short-term gift voucher to the residents they will sell or rent their new homes too, i.e. more of a promotional item or discount for them rather than a serious attempt to improve air quality. While the principle of encouraging new residents to use alternative Given the likely impact of 50-100 new houses appearing in a field, many of which will have two cars each, plus their visitors, Green Travel Vouchers are a drop in the ocean, similar applies to bicycle vouchers.

However on the occasions when I have totted up the amount that collectively the Green Travel Vouchers amount to and proposed at SHDC Planning Committee that this amount should be invested in public or community transport to provide a better service to these new residents and thereby help them change their travel habits more permanently (i.e. for a much longer period than a travel voucher would last) I have generally been informed that this needs to be put to the developer at a much earlier stage.  I therefore hereby ask for that to be the case for planners at SHDC to request of developers during the planning application process.

• It seems to me that the Air Quality Impact of Option 5 with Travel Vouchers is less than 1, however if converted to investment in local public or community bus services this could be 3 – 4
• On that basis I’d suggest that the cost effectiveness of option 5 as per my amendment could be medium to high.

 

Option 6

I believe that Green Travel Planning should be a public service that operates as a front line service in conjunction with local authority strategists, public transport provides and all tiers of local authorities to provide sustainable transport options for all modes of transport. However I’m aware that this utopia does not currently exist and therefore I do agree that in this day and age of private transport being the option most supported with public funds, having a Green Travel Planner is the kind of initiative that is essential to provide counterbalance and to work with new residents as well as local organisations, transport providers etc to promote and encourage modal change towards sustainable options.  I also agree that the developers who are making the money out of these new houses should fund Green Travel Planning.

An added advantage of this initiative is bring new residents together and assisting with community building.

A Green Travel Planner was one of the proposals from Totnes on the Move and how this could work has been well articulated in Totnes TC transport policy and strategy.

• The Air Quality Impact of Option 6 could be 3 – 4
• The cost effectiveness of option 6 could be medium to high.

 

Option 7

The proposed compulsory / voluntary purchase of residential buildings at risk is an appalling scenario and probably counterproductive.  This could leave some of the best and or most historic buildings in the town centre and immediate environs not only unfit for habitation, but also effectively ‘killing off’ the town centre.  The chances are that by getting rid of the problem of excessive air quality problems in this way, the number of vehicles and their associated emissions will increase and this will lead to further compulsory purchases.

This expensive measure will not achieve any reduction in actual emissions and will be costly in terms of actual purchase and quality of life in the town.  In my view a waste of money.

• The Air Quality Impact of Option 7 would be 0 to minus numbers 

• The cost effectiveness of option 7 would be zero; in fact very expensive

 

Alternative options from Totnes Town Council Transport Strategy & Policy that should be considered and evaluated:

Totnes to Littlehempston Cycle link

One of the most significant Options that should be included in this plan is the Totnes to Littlehempston Cycle link.  This would form a missing link currently on a National Cycle route.  This pedestrian and cycle path has been proposed and worked on by residents of both Totnes and Littlehempston for over 15 years. It is widely acknowledged that this would make a difference to school children and regular commuters travelling to and from from the Newton Abbot direction.  It only requires the (mostly) publicly funded footbridge that currently is only used to access the Steam Train station to be made available for acess across the river and then a short pathway across South West Water Land.

This pedestrian and cycle link is essential to the network of these pathways. In particular as the A381 between Totnes and Ipplepen is so dangerous for cyclists and not possible for pedestrians.

This would be a significant tourist attraction, in particular with many of the 25% of visitors who come to Totnes to visit Transition initiatives.  It would also be of economic  benefit to the Community facilities in Littlehempston, including the Community pub.

• The Air Quality Impact of the Totnes – Lttlehempston cycle link would be 5 – high
• The cost effectiveness of the Totnes – Lttlehempston cycle link would be high

 

Shared Space in Totnes Town Centre

Since the air quality monitors used by SHDC Environmental Health are only sited on residential buildings, the vehicle pollution that is clearly present and unpleasant goes unrecorded.  In addition the motorized traffic that compromises physical safety in Totnes Fore Street, High Street and the Narrows needs to be minimized to improve not only these health risk factors but also reduce risk to heritage buildings that could have a disastrous economic impact on the town if some of these buildings were to fail.

This proposal was assessed and estimated by DCC in 2014 as costing £100,000. A worthwhile investment in this important town.

(For other sustainable and publicly consulted on options for travel schemes please see the listings on the Totnes Transport Strategy and Policy (appendix 5) attached)

 

Other Schemes emerging from Neighbourhood Plans:

Quiet Lanes are emerging as an option to reduce ‘rat runs’.  A lengthy, well considered and evidenced proposal was made to South Hams HATOC in April 2018. 

Converting some unclassified into cycle and pedestrian ways.  This would reduce maintenance costs of DCC and provide more off-road cycle and pedestrian routes

Extension of the monitoring of the A385 should be extended up to and include Huxhams Cross in Dartington.  This would enable greater understanding of the impact of the considerable volume of new housing and employment space being built in Dartington and the associated traffic and potential pollution.  The village centre in Dartington at Shinner’s Bridge where the A385 and A384 converge has become very much busier in recent years; with the close proximity of four schools the air quality needs to be monitored.

In Conclusion

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this draft strategy for south Hams and Action Plan is that with the virtually complete lack of public funding to be invested in infrastructure in the South Hams and in particular Totnes over the next twelve years at least.  This is an extraordinary omission that needs formal explanation and underlines why the proposed Air Quality Action Plan is so deficient as no public money is proposed to help alleviate the situation in Totnes.  All that is proposed to be sought is to be funded through contributions from developers, indeed such minor proposals that are likely to have little or no direct impact on the current or future air quality in Totnes from Berry Pomeroy to Dartington or Harberton.

Yours faithfully,

Jacqi Hodgson

Cllr. Jacqi Hodgson

 

Enclosed (below) : Totnes Town Council Transport Strategy and Policy with schemes

Totnes Town Council

 

Transport Policy and Strategy 2014

 

 

 

1  Vision (What we would like to see happen)

 

• Introduction and Overview(Travel needs to be addressed)

 

• Transport Policy 2014 (Our guiding principles)
  • Access For All
  • Sustainability
  • Community Engagement

 

4   Transport Strategy 2014(How we plan to make this happen)

• Objectives (What we plan to do)
• References and relevant transport plans

 

5   Appendix: Schemes (Projects that make this happen)

5.1 Maps (to be included later)

 

_____________________________________________

Vision

A resilient town wide transport policy and strategy that will deliver sustainable travel for all users, ensuring safe, healthy streets and a pleasant, prosperous and vibrant town centre.

2. Introduction and Overview

 

This document is intended to outline Totnes Town Council’s position relating to transport in the town.

 

The principles contained in the Policy and Strategy reflect Totnes Town Council’s commitment to improving access to transport with a focus on encouraging the use of sustainable travel wherever possible.

 

Reference should be made to this Policy and Strategy alongside other planning guidance when considering all future plans and developments in the town. Decisions made should be in keeping with these principles. In particular this information will help inform Devon County Council and South Hams District Council in the context of considering travel schemes submitted for S.106 grant funding which would benefit the Totnes area. Details of current and planned schemes which will implement these principles are found in the Appendix.

 

This Transport Policy and Strategy will be reviewed from time to time. Information on the associated schemes listed in the Appendix and other relevant transport plans will be regularly updated.

 

A further summary document outlining these principles is available for residents and visitors.

 

1. Totnes is situated at the junction of roads linking Torbay and Plymouth (A385), Newton Abbot (A381) and Kingsbridge and the South Hams (A381). More than 60% of traffic on the A385 is through traffic. Planned developments in Torbay are likely to bring a further increase in traffic. The A385 through Dartington and Totnes is a designated Air Quality Management Area due to levels of pollution.There is no prospect of a bypass in the foreseeable future.

 

2. Longer-term, we anticipate a reduction in the number of private cars as a consequence of rising oil prices and a shift in the types of transport used. We can anticipate this position (and mitigate the impact of short term traffic increases), by promoting other modes of transport and developing a sustainable travel plan that helps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

 

3. There is already a national increase in the use of bicycles, which provides both a healthy and a sustainable form of travel. Local development plan documents acknowledge the need to create a fully linked up local cycle path network. This needs to extend to outlying villages.

 

4. There have been fatal accidents at True Street and on Kingsbridge Hill in recent years. DCC reports a series of minor accidents on High Street / Fore Street, and wishes to reduce the amount of unnecessary traffic travelling through the centre of the town.

 

5. There has been a long-standing controversy about the presence of cars on High Street / Fore Street. This strategy acknowledges the need for continued access for emergency and delivery vehicles and community transport; the need for easy access for pedestrians, particularly disabled access; the need for adequate parking overall in the town to support trade; and a desire to improve the pedestrian experience in the town centre.

 

6. Residents’ car parking schemes were introduced in various residential areas around the town in 2010, and their impact and efficacy needs to be reviewed.
7. Transport Policy

 

 3.1     ACCESS FOR ALL

We aim to address the travel needs of:

1. Residents in Totnes and its 15-parish hinterland who depend on the town for provisions, services and employment.
2. Those with travel needs, who for reasons of age, disability, income or choice do not have access to private transport.
3. Organisations and companies providing services and deliveries
4. People who come from a wider area and who contribute to the local economy e.g. visitors.
5. Those who are simply passing through.

 

• SUSTAINABILITY

1. Reduce the need to travel.
2. Support access for all that covers all primary modes of transport based on a hierarchy of walking and impaired mobility vehicles, cycling (including electric powered), service delivery vehicles, community transport (with disabled access), other public transport (including rail), taxis, private cars (including car clubs and car sharing), and haulage vehicles.
3. Support and propose sustainable transport schemes, including connecting people to key destinations by walking / cycling links.
4. Support proposals that improve public and community transport with priority given to access in Totnes and district, then destinations further afield.
5. Work towards integrated transportation hub systems to provide linked exchange to different ways of travel including Park & Ride / Stride proposals to reduce traffic and the need for parking in Totnes.
6. Seek comprehensive transport assessments and green travel plans for all significant locations where a large number of individuals will need regular transport.
7. Encourage and support traffic management measures to reduce car usage, congestion, air pollution and noise and that enhance the environment, improve safety and promote sustainable modes of travel.

 

• COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

1. Consult and engage widely with residents on transport proposals that will affect travel, parking and traffic in and around Totnes.
2. Work in partnership with community groups that have a transport remit, statutory authorities and other relevant authorities.

 

 

4. Transport Strategy

 

Totnes has been considered to be the fourth most congested town in Devon.  In the context of the existing traffic congestion and the planned developments in and around the town, a strategy for accommodating existing and new journeys is required.

 

4.1 OBJECTIVES

1. Advocate the implementation of the Totnes Town Council Transport Policy.
2. Draw on the associated Transport strategies developed by Devon County Council (January 2013), The Integrated Cycle Plan for Totnes (March 2012) and Totnes on the Move (November 2012) and align with them wherever possible.
3. Expand local community transport.
4. Support plans for transport exchange hubs which support public transport and other sustainable modes.
5. Encourage more walking and cycling in the town and surrounding parishes by promoting and supporting proposals that improve and extend the footpath and cycleway network. As modes of transport that enhance health, community cohesion and are sustainable, they should be made safe, convenient and enjoyable through improvements to existing paths, opening cut-throughs, making space for cycle paths separated from the carriageway, and by connecting quiet roads to the surrounding parishes.
6. Support measures that ensure that through traffic on the A385 and other through roads moves as efficiently and in as safe and healthy a way as possible.
7. Support improvements to the pedestrian experience in High Street/Fore Street.
8. Support our traders, residents and visitors alike with measures to ensure adequate parking and easy access to the town centre.
9. Request Green Travel Plans for schools, major employers, public buildings, and similar large destinations, and require comprehensive transport assessments and Green Travel Plans for all planning developments that are likely to generate significant amounts of travel, or where there may be local traffic problems associated with a planning application.
10. Support Shared Spacemeasures in and around the Town.
11. Support the expansion of car clubs and car sharing.
12. The Town Council will consult with residents through its community engagement policy and debate at the Traffic and Transport Forum.

 

 

4.2   References and Relevant Transport Plans

 

Totnes Station – signing recommendationsTim Padfield, TOTM paper, 3 November 2013

 

Rural Bus Services report Tim Padfield, TOTM paper, August 2013 (Sent to all the fifteen parish councils

surrounding Totnes, asking for their views about bus services towards Totnes).

 

Totnes Transport Strategy, Devon County Council (Jacobs) December 2012(informed by the TotM process)

 

Town-wide Sustainable Travel Strategy, TOTM Community Board, 12th October, 2012


 

Air Quality Action Plan, May 2012
Sarah Harcombe, SHDC’s Air Quality officer, has issued this draft SHDC Air Quality Action Plan – pages 4 to 16 of which cover Totnes (especially Bridgetown Hill – which is the key air quality problem in the South Hams).

 

Defining Sustainable Transport (Paper one), Devon County Council 17/08/11

 

Cycle Parking Survey and recommendations Fore Street / High Street, (TOTM) 11 July, 2011

 

Hamilton-Baillie Associates Report on Totnes
’Movement, safety and pedestrian comfort in the town centre’ July 2012

 

Walking Network Enhancements, TOTM paper November 2012

 

Community Transport Feasibility Study outline proposalTOTM paper 2012

 

Integrated Cycle Plan for Totnes, Recommendations for a 21^stCentury Cycling and Walking network. Eric van der Horst. March 2012

• Cycling:
An introduction to the Integrated Cycle PlanTOTM (powerpoint)October 2012
• A3 mapshowing routes and junction numbers – key to Eric van der Horst’s report October 2012
• Signage Appendix for Totnes Report TOTM 2012
• Infrastructure Appendix for Totnes Report TOTM 2012

 

Totnes Bridge proposal:

• Phase 1 Totnes Bridge Presentationto TT&TF 10/10/12
• Phase 1 Totnes Bridge Presentation to TTC 5/11/12

 

Totnes Biofuels:
Totnes Biofuel Hub & Community Transport Study: A Technical & Financial Analysis 10/10/12

 

 

 

5. Appendix: Schemes

 

The following schemes are projects that have been identified, investigated and prioritised by Totnes on the Move Community Board.  Each scheme has been assessed to indicate which Town Council Strategic Objective(s) it supports.

 

This list may change as schemes are completed and others put forward.

 

Schemes in process for 2013-14

1. Toll House Cycle Path (In process for 2013-14) Toll House cycle scheme, between Kingsbridge Hill and the Ashprington junction. EDG have drawn up a design for this scheme.

2. Plymouth Road (In process for 2013-14) A pedestrian crossing on Plymouth Road between the junctions of Birchwood Close and Farwell Road. (Agreed at the South hams HATOC on 12 July – completed) Jacobs are now working to complete this, the gateway and the Advanced Stop Line before the end of the financial year.

3. Totnes Station Forecourt (In process for 2013-14) Rail Station. Signing. Signing is needed to all destinations in the town, including a map. Cycle Parking. Agreement with the new Station Manager should allow this to go ahead.

4. E-cocars. (In process for 2013-14)

5. Ebikes

6. Community Transport Bob the Bus Promotion and publicity to encourage more passengers and to widen the demographic appeal of the service,

7. Bus Shelter at Shinners Bridge Roundabout (In process for 2013-4/14-15)

8. Totnes Station Forecourt route-ways into town Ramps. The ramps into Borough Park need signing and making more attractive for pedestrians.

9. Inner Plymouth Road (east of the Western Bypass), Narrow carriageway to one lane by removing the right turn lane, and use the space to provide a wider footway on the north side.

 

 

 

Priority Schemes  for 2014-15

1. Rotherfold LSTF funding for Highways elements of Rotherfold Development Project.

2. Ashburton Road between Redworth junction and Clay Lane Widen footway along Ashburton Road between Redworth junction and Clay Lane for shared pedestrian/ cycle use. This will serve the proposed new developments on the south west i.e. Police Station, Puddavine Care Home side of A385 for access to KEVICC, Station, and the Red Carpet Route.  Clay Lane provides a link to Dartington via Cott.

3. Ashburton Road between Redworth junction and Dartington Lane Widen footway along Ashburton Road between Redworth junction and Dartington Lane for shared pedestrian/cycle use. This will serve the proposed new development on the North West i.e. Dartington Lane side of A385 for access to KEVICC, Station, and the Red Carpet Route. (See Cycle Plan, Proposal 12).

4. Bridgetown ‘Chicken Run’ Bridgetown ‘Chicken Run’. Provide ramps to bypass the seven sets of steps, for scooter/cycle use, along this popular walking route for all of Bridgetown. Approved by Community Board and circulated Summer 2013.

5. Totnes – Dartington Access for All Path Totnes – Dartington Access for All Path (shared use). Resurfacing, and maintenance/replacement of A for A facilities e.g. tapping rails. Removal of cattle grid, gates etc. where necessary. This is currently being progressed by Mike Watts, Area Programme Delivery Officer Highways, liaising with Paul McFadden, PROW Warden.

 

Supplementary Schemes  for 2014-15 Replacements for any of the schemes which prove to be unachievable

1. Totnes Rail path Route from rail station under Station Road bridge. Initial discussions with Network Rail have been positive. Requires some minor works to connect to Castle Street. See Cycle Plan (approved by Community Board and circulated March/ April 2013) Proposal 4.

2. Coronation Road Improved cycle and pedestrian crossing at the entrance to Morrisons supermarket.

3. Pedestrian crossing on Heath Way at the Grove School DCC Public Notice for the Proposed Enlargement of The Grove School states: “… with 523 proposed new homes forecast in the area … some expansion will need to occur …. The current site at the Grove is well positioned to … encourage sustainable transport to school.” – (Part B  5. Need for additional places)

4. Leechwell Lane & The Nursery car park exit Pedestrian crossing of Heath Way to Heath Way car park & continuation of Leechwell Lane.

5. Western Bypass at Cistern Street Move the bus stop closer to the junction with Plymouth Road (possibly to where the seat is just to the south of the junction)

6. Western Bypass at junction with Plymouth Road Provide pedestrian crossing facility on north side of junction, to connect with walking route from Paige Adams Road.

7. Lower Moat Hill (at junction with New Walk and St Peter’s Quay) Close the Hill to motorised vehicles, retaining permeability for pedestrians & cyclists. This would prevent it being used as a cut through to access the Western Bypass.

8. Moat Hill Minor improvements for pedestrians, e.g. a build out on the corner of Maudlin Road and Moat Hill to improve pedestrian visibility.

9. Coronation Road at Seven Stars Hotel At next maintenance opportunity, remove short section of painted cycle lane. It is narrow, encourages cyclists to ride too close to the footway, and drivers can squeeze cyclists.

10. The Lamb & Leechwell Street ·       Pedestrian crossing at the junction of the Lamb with Leechwell Street. ·       Leechwell Street, northern end, at the crossing point, requires a connecting ramp up to The Lamb. This would make a walk/cycle connection to the allotments and to the Toll House shared use path towards Ashprington and Harbertonford.

11. Langridge Cross (SX 787582) Provide two bus stops. This is the nearest main road junction to Harberton village; the X81 service – much more frequent than the village service – could stop here, so avoiding some of the current car use

Larger and Longer Term Schemes

1. Totnes to Littlehempston Cycle / pedestrian  Path There is a long term, substantial public campaign for this the most direct route to close the severance in NCN2 between Totnes and Newton Abbot. It is supported by all the County Councillors on the route and Totnes’ and other MPs. It has been considered by the Minister, who has written to the South Devon Railway requesting them to make progress. It was the subject of evidence given to the recent All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group Enquiry, and mentioned at length in the Parliamentary Debate on the subsequent Report.

2. Plymouth Road, east of Follaton Cross Provide a footway on north side of the road. The residents of the north side – there are no houses yet on the south side – of what is in effect the main road to Plymouth have no pavement from Follaton Cross on either side for 200m and for a further 200m only on the south side, with no crossing point.

3. Footpath between Totnes Bridge and Brutus Bridge. Upgrade to allow use by cyclists. Needs to include a ramp down from Totnes Bridge.

4. Seven Stars Roundabout and The Plains Redesign on shared space principles.

5. Totnes to Steiner School cycle route Continue Totnes to Steiner School cycle route to Buckfastleigh.

6. New junction layout at junction of St Katherine’s Way and New Walk. There is to be considerable new housing at Baltic Wharf, from which New Walk leads directly to The Plains and the bottom of town. A layout to encourage walking/cycling could reduce possible congestion in this area.

7. New pedestrian / cycle Bridge over the river Dart, south of the existing Totnes Bridge. Attempts to reallocate space on Totnes Bridge were unsuccessful, need to determine if a new bridge is feasible. It would connect Bridgetown and Totnes.

8. Redworth Junction

9. Park and Change

10. Cycle Network

11. Travel Planning

12. School Green Travel Plans

13. ABC Cycle Repair & Maintenance training facility

14. Motorcycle Parking

Other possible schemes: ·       Stoke Gabriel path – coming up a lot at TTF and should be on list ·       Sharpham path – should be on the list ·       Bidwell Brook Cycle path – Keep in contact with Dartington PC re funding

 

 

 

County & District Councillor’s Monthly Report         

Cllr. Jacqi Hodgson –   Date of Report: 10^th July 2018

County Councillor for Totnes & Dartington

(incl. Harberton, Harbertonford, Staverton, Landscove & part of Berry Pomeroy)

District Councillor for Dartington & Staverton

 

Key Issues

Devon County Council seem to have embraced very fully the issue of single use plastics and broadened this to include other plastic waste.  Their report at June Cabinet meeting included an action plan and there are elements of this that fit well for use at Town and Parish level.  I have circulated the DCC report separately.

The SHDC Clean Air Strategy and Air Quality Management Plan for Totnes is in my view very worrying as I believe that as it stands it offers very little by way of practical actions to improve either congestion of air quality in either the South Hams or Totnes and environs.  I have suggested that the Totnes & District Traffic & Transport Forum prepare a submission for this public consultation (James Kershaw – Environmental Health Officer – has agreed to take further comments and views) and that as part of this the Totnes TC Transport Strategy and Policy and schemes is reviewed and updated to benefit not only the Green Travel Plan work now taking place in Totnes, but also the Neighbourhood Plans in this town and neighbouring Parishes but also to provide a community view when significant developments are put forward once the Joint Local Plan is approved.  It is appreciated that James Kershaw has attended Parish and Town Council meetings to encourage submissions and answer questions.

 

Green Travel Plan for Totnes & Environ

Tracy Cheeseman who works with Transition Town Totnes has been working with residents of Follaton Oak as part of the 106 planning agreement to assist new residents in reducing their car use and carbon footprint.  This has been very successful and this work is now being looked at with a view to this moving seamlessly to the Baltic Wharf and wider Totnes Green Travel plan coordination that has been agreed under the original S106 agreement for the Baltic Wharf development.  Tracey’s work has been very successful and has enabled deeper understanding of how non-car routes are perceived as safe or otherwise new residents and the kinds of travel modes new residents wish to adopt.  Incentives such as public travel vouchers and bicycle vouchers have been explored as options and one clear outcome is that ‘one size’ does not fit all and meeting practical needs rather than wants has been very welcome by new residents.  This project is highly relevant to all new large developments in South Hams as it will provide informed options and incentives that a106 monies can be used for to reduce car use as the first option for travel.  It also has implications for adjacent rural parishes who are affected by key routes in and out of Totnes.

HIGHWAYS MATTERS:

Collapsed wall in Maudlin Rd: update. Non – the liability wrangle continues!  I have asked for this to be referred to this months South Hams HATOC.

Collapsed Pavement in Castle Street.I attended the scene the night it happend.  The local Fire service were in attendance and had checked and ensured that the footpath had been made safe, the severe drop was barricaded and they agreed to provide amber lights.  I contacted the out of hours highways service to ensure this was checked and recommended Building control investigate as the public footpath had been undercut by the developer.  I have been assured that all is in hand and safe.  I understand a licence for these works adjacent to the highway has now been sought.

South Hams HATOC 6^thJuly 2018: Items I requested to be on the agenda

• Totnes – Littlehempston cycle path update and progress report:

This was taken forward and a meeting with SWW and the Steam railway with Officers and County Cllrs will be requested.  Monies to develop the path (est. £30-40,000) were reported to potentially be available via the A385 Traffic Management plan funding.

• Dartington Village Centre – 106 monies, speed limits and safety. Plus site visit to include Parish Councillors:

A Site visit has been set up for the end of July with Parish Councillors and County Councillor with Highways Officers.  This will inform a site visit of all the HATOC committee in advance of the next SH HATOC (Nov’18).  The 106 monies are being looked into by SHDC Monitoring Officer.

• Maudlin Road collapsed wall– update on progress. The legal wrangle continues, but the Road Closure Notice will b lifted.
• (I also requested that the outcomes of the SHDC Clear Air Strategy Review and public consultation be on the next SH HATOC agenda – this was agreed)

 

Highways matters reported on behalf of Dartington Parish.  I have had conversations with Highways Officers Darren Cole regarding the treacherous pot holes in the lane from Follaton to Sawpit Lane just near to the railway bridge.  There are severe drainage issues there and they are hoping to improve the drainage and repair the road very soon.  To assist Parishes with Lengthsmen work I requested hard copies of A1 drainage maps for all my rural parishes – these have been produced to be given to each.

 

SOUTH HAMS DISTRICT COUNCIL

ENFORCEMENT CASES:There are currently 28 Enforcement Cases outstanding in this Ward: 12 cases in Dartington and 16 in Staverton: I am very concerned about the length of time taken to resolve these issues, some of which have been outstanding for years. I will be attending a meeting on 10^thJuly with all three Enforcement Officers to discuss all of these cases and receive updates.  As many of these enforcement cases relate to illegal traveller sites I have written to Sophie Hoskins CEO at SHDC to request that a more creative approach is taken to accommodating the wider community of people now living as travellers.  I have proposed that a Gypsy and Traveller Forum as established (and very productive in Teignbridge) is established in SHDC.

JOINT LOCAL PLAN: The revised JLP with the Inspectors recommendations is expected by the end of July to early August.  This will then go out for further public consultation.  I have added additional comment on behalf of the parishes I represent to ensure that the comments we all made at the oral hearings are included in the new draft JLP

 

This past month I have made formal submissions on:

• The Greater Horseshoe Bat Public Consultation
• SHDC Air Quality Management Plan – Clean Air StrategyPublic Consultation
• National Consultation on Gypsy & Traveller Sites: on powers for dealing with unauthorised developments and encampments.
• The Dartington 15m Mast Appeal (copy attached)further to which the appeal has been withdrawn

My submissionsare available for public viewing and information (and recycling) on a website blog I have set up:You are welcome to reiterate points and issues I raise in my responses: www.jacqihodgson.org

 Attendance at meetings etc. as elected public representative:

 Weds June 13^th                  

DCC Cabinet:  items:

• Roadworks Permit scheme for consultation: proposed to replace the current Notification Scheme.  Ie seeking prior approval rather than works simply going ahead.
• A new policy for persistent evaders of parking enforcement
• DCCs speed management policy review
• Position on enforcement of bus lanes and box junctions
• A New Strategy and Action Plan for Plasticsprepared by officers was presented and approved (I forwarded this to all T.Cllrs to assist with our plans for local action).  This report was further to a motion on single use plastics that I seconded in Autumn 2017 and raised further at last month’s Full Council meeting.
•  DCC Crowdfunding workshop to encourage Councillors to work with others increase the value of their Locality budgets

KEVICCS Foundation Governor’s meeting

 Thurs June 14^th                   

SHDC Executive Meeting: Totnes 106 monies for Transition Homes were discussed 

This was the meeting where a confidential matter was discussed that has since been cited as a “secret meeting”.  It is my view that this matter should have been discussed in full public view (and I said so at the meeting)

Caring Town Totnes: Keeping Young People Safe meeting

SHDC Planning Enforcement workshop for Members

Dartington Rcreational Association Public Consultation event on revisions to play area

Mon June 18^th                    

Meeting on site with enforcement Officer re: Higher Tweedmill Development issues.

(AONB) Dart Estuary Forum inauguration meeting – well attended and very positive

Tues June 19^th                     

Totnes Rural Area Youth Engagement (TRAYE) Project meeting with the youth workers

Weds June 20^th

Totnes – Littlehempston Cycle Path group mtg.  Proposals to be raised at SH HATOC in July

Sat June 23^rd                       

National Rally in London for a People’s Referendum on the terms of Brexit

 Mon June 25^th                    

Totnes Neighbourhood PlanTask & Finish Group meeting.

Tues June 26^th

Dartington School protest at Mast installation(on Highways land) and Appeal for other mast

Weds June 27^th                  

Totnes Green Travel Plan strategy meeting.

 Thurs June 28^th                   

SHDC Members session regarding waste procurement contracts

 Mon July 2^nd                        

SHDC DM Committee Site meeting

Totnes TC meeting

 Weds July 4^th                       

SHDC DM Committee: Beacon Park was reconsidered and further approved.  I challenged the Ecology Officer on the status of the Ecology Reports and said they were out of date.  Also traffic safety issues were a key concern.  However they were only considering the impact on amenity of the Educational facility opposite.

Weds July 4^th                       

Totnes Traffic & Transport Forum

Staverton PC meeting

Friday July 6^th                      

South Hams HATOC: (see report in highlighted issues above)

TRAYE project:Staff Review

 Tues July 10^th                       

SHDC Meeting with Enforcement officersto go through all the 28 cases currently open in my Ward – very helpful.

Harberton PC meeting

 Diary Dates

Thurs 19^thJuly                      2.15pm  DCC Full Council

Thurs 26^thJuly                      2pm    SHDC Full Council – special Full Council to approve new waste contracts

 Information: For 2018/19, the previous Town and Parish (TAP) Fund, has been relaunched as the Communities Together Fund.

The aim of the Communities Together Fund is to encourage communities to work together; identifying new ideas for their mutual benefit. Applications are welcome from community projects benefiting, enhancing and making a difference to communities.  There are some minor changes between the TAP and Communities Together Fund, including the purpose of the fund, those that are eligible to apply and also the projects that can be supported. The more notable changes are:

• The fund is now open to applications from voluntary and community organisations (as well as Parish and Town Councils)
• The fund will no longer support grass cutting/ditching and drainage/lengthsman projects
• Match funding will increase the likelihood of an application being supported
• You will need to demonstrate that you have explored opportunities to work with other voluntary and community groups to either identify and/or carry out the proposed project
• The project should benefit more than one Town or Parish.

The Guidance Notes and Application form for the 2018/19 scheme will be accessible from w/c 11^th June via the link at https://www.southhams.gov.uk/article/3854/Community-Grants-Funding . You are strongly encouraged to review the detail of the Guidance Notes before applying. The deadline for applications is noon on Friday 14^th December 2018. More info: Rob Sekula   Email:  rob.sekula@swdevon.gov.uk

 Public Consultation:  DCC and Charity Libraries Unlimited (which is commissioned to run Devon’s Libraries) are considering ways to increase the take up in rural areas in order to reach more people who can’t easily access Devon’s 50 public libraries.  They have launched a review to invite ideas and suggestions to help shape the design of an outreach service that better meets the needs of everyone and offers better access to the wider range of library services.  People can take part in the consultation by visiting devon.cc/librariesoutreach   The consultation can be completed online or paper copies are available at libraries. The deadline for responses is 28^thJuly 2018

 COPY OF MY LETTER OF REPRESENTATION REGARDING THE APPEAL LODGED BY VODAFONE FOR THE 15M Mast in Dartington

Councillor Jacqi Hodgson

 

27^thJune 2018

Submitted online: enquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk

The Planning Inspectorate,                                    

Room 4A Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2, The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN

Submission regarding APP/K1128/W/17/3191716

South Hams District Council Planning reference: 3137/17/PAT

15m high replica telegraph pole mast with 2 base units

Site location: Highways Land adjacent to Car Park,

A384, Shinners Bridge,

Dartington, Totnes, Devon. TQ9 6JD

Dear Sir / Madam,

This is my submission regarding the above planning Appeal.

I wish to state clearly that I support the key reasons for and recommendation of refusal cited in the SHDC Case Officer report, and for which I supported and provided a delegated decision of Refusal on 14^thNovember 2017.

Support for local concerns and third party objections

As a local elected public representative and in my own right I also agree with the many reasons for objection as cited by the many residents, local schools and community groups cited in the reports.  These are valid reasons and none of which have changed.

I also support the many representations that I am aware have been sent into your offices regarding this appeal.  Over ten of these and representations from the local schools (which in turn represent over 100 children and parents) have been copied into myself and I wish to state my support for those very valid objections.

You might be aware that a protest march took place just this week, when over 150 parents and children left the school early to make a public rally for their school, Dartington Primary School to the newly installed 10meter mast on the same site as that proposed as the subject of this Appeal. Their protest was about both the installed 10meter mast and the Appeal for the 15 meter mast.  I entirely support their very valid concerns for the children’s health and wellbeing.

Two separate Planning Applications for masts at the same location

You might be aware that there has been a recent installation of a 10 meter mast (in exactly the same location as that which is the subject of this appeal) further to the decision taken by South Hams Development Management (Planning) Committee for planning application 4325/17/PAT on 7^thFebruary 2018 based on the Case Officer recommendation by SHDC to Vodafone that Prior Approval was not required.  However at that DM Committee meeting (of which I am a Member) I put forward a motion of refusal which was seconded; however this was lost in the vote of 3:8.

However the same concerns and issues which SHDC found against the current subject of Appeal and this subsequent application for Prior Notification which was granted approval carries significant contradictions and it is with regret that I observe that the difference of 5mters on the height of the mast was sufficient to satisfy the Case Officer and eight of my colleagues on the Planning Committee.  I would like to stress that the local residents were no further addressed in their concerns and reasons for objections in for the 10 meter mast proposal than they were for the shorter 10meter mast.  I see no reason why the decision of Prior Approval not required for the 10meter mast could b used to argue in favour of the 15meter mast, i.e. the subject of this appeal as the 5 meter or 30% difference in the height of an intrusive structure in a picturesque rural village is a substantial difference. However I still stand by my view and that of the residents and other objectors that neither mast has a place in this sensitive location.

While I accept that planning applications can be made for sites and that the presence of another development on the same site does not preclude an application being valid or approved or otherwise; it would appear however that the applicant being the same for both mast structure applications in question, raises the concern of ‘planning by stealth’.  I would have thought that this is not to be welcomed or supported by any planning authority.

I would suggest that Planning Application 4325/17/PAT was passed by a very slight but never the less significant difference from 3137/17/PAT and that difference was simply the five-meter height difference that had material visual significance.

Health and safety concerns

The key concerns regarding this mast relate the precautionary principle with regard to health and safety from non-ionising radiation emissions from the proposed mast.  This principle was incorporated into the Principles of Sustainable Development as adopted in Rio de Janiro at the United Nations Earth Summit in 1992 and subsequently underpinned EU Legislation[1].  The Precautionary Principle enshrines the ‘Human Right’ to a safe environment.

While Health Matters in general cannot be challenged as the guidelines used (and approved by Government) says they are safe, we should challenge that very premise as the current guidelines ICNIRP) date back to 1999, almost 20 years ago and there have been many changes to the demand for mobile phone services as well as the power of the transmissions; the cumulative effect will be much more of an issue now. Before any mobile phone mast is considered for planning permission, in particular when health and safety concerns have been raised, we should ensure that the guidance being applied is in line with current research.

The Government’s own Health and Safety webpage has some useful information, some of which is clearly open to challenge, not least of which is that it is dated 21/05/2001, again over seventeen years old.  On this (at point 15) it recognises the distress to residents living close to masts and at point 20 states”20 A further recommendation of the report was that there should be a programme of independent auditing of sites. It has been agreed that the Radio communications Agency (RA), an executive agency of DTI, will commence such a programme and will begin with an audit of base stations sited at schools”  This raises the question “where has this been carried out and what are the results?”.

Other health and safety information and studies are available and make a clear case for public concern about these emissions for example: http://www.mastaction.co.ukand at https://www.radiationresearch.org/…/mob…/mobile-phone-masts/where it is noted that the major city of Paris is addressing this.  The current guidelines need to be updated to incorporate this research and guidance.  In the mid 90’s The Irish Government produced guidelines for the planning authorities to use when mobil phone masts were proposed.  These were based on then current Swedish studies which had raised health and safety concerns.  The basic guidance was:

• Masts should not be sited within 1kilomenter of schools, kindergartens, residences or workplaces
• Masts should be monitored for their emissions on a regular basis

Children’s lives should not be put at risk as part of an experiment.  The Glenville Tower tragedy should be a lesson to all decision makers about complacency and following paper trails rather than common sense and a prudent precautionary approach.  Before any mast is installed a base line map of current non-ionising emissions should be presented to the planning authority and a further map indicating the anticipated cumulative effect on those baseline readings based on possible maximum radiation at any on time.  Remember school children are in school and outside playing during peak usage times for mobile phone and associated likely emissions from masts.

Failure to properly consult with or consider other potentially suitable locations

The local schools and Community Centre:

Immediate vicinity:                                  Bidwell Brook special needs school

Robins Respite Centre for special needs students

Dartington Primary School

Dartington Academy

Meadowbrook Community Centre + outdoor play area and swimming pool

Dartington Village Hall

 

Less than 1 km distance:                        Park School, Dartington

Steiner School at Hood, Dartington

King Edward VI Community College

None of these important community facilities were properly consulted and all are deeply concerned about the impact of a mobile phone mast so close.

One of the requirements of the planning process is that operators should consider a range of sites and justify why they select a certain site. The list of sites put forward with the planning application listed in the submitted Declaration of Conformity – Document 3241784 were not consulted either. Having spoken to a number of local people it seems that those who should have been contacted for these other sites, were not contacted, in particular the schools, who should also have been asked for the views on the proposal to site the mast where it is now installed. This is a material planning consideration that seems to have been flouted.

The Parish Council has offered to discuss with the Applicant other possible sites that could be far more suitable; in particular within the context of its Neighbourhood Plan group this exercise could provide a site that meets more of the preferential options for the location of a mast.

Under the Localism Legislation 2012 this would be a far more conciliatory way to assist th local community in determining what it needs and where such structures could be located.

Visual Amenity

This mast was considered extremely likely to have a significant adverse impact on Visual Amenity in a rural village centre, in particular one with a high tourism and visitor footfall. The artist’s impression with the planning application was misleading as it suggested this mast would be within a row of much higher trees; trees that are actually on the other side of the road – this mast stand would alone and be very visible.

This has been borne out by the recent installation of the approved 10meter mast.  It stands out in the landscape in an obtrusive way and detracts significantly from the village centre and the historic rural landscape setting.

Without reservation I restate my continued objection to this planning application and the appeal that has been lodged.  I would like the opportunity to represent the local residents and groups who object to this planning application at the appeal thereon.

Yours faithfully,

Jacqi Hodgson

Cllr. Jacqi Hodgson

[1]The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) generally defines actions on issues considered to be uncertain, for instance applied in assessing risk management. The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.

In some legal systems, as in law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement in some areas of law.

 

Councillor Jacqi Hodgson

Devon County Council – Member for Totnes & Dartington

(incl. Harberton & Harbertonford and Staverton & Landscove and part of Berry Pomeroy)

South Hams District Council – Ward Member for Dartington & Staverton

Totnes Town Council – Member for Bridgetown

 

Email: Jacqi.Hodgson@Devon.gov.uk / Cllr.Hodgson@southhams.gov.uk

Tel. 01803-840526 / 07922 411266

c/o home address; 9, Argyle Terrace, Totnes, Devon TQ9 5JJ

27^th June 2018

Submitted online: enquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk

The Planning Inspectorate,                            

Room 4A Kite Wing,

Temple Quay House,

2, The Square,

Temple Quay,

Bristol,

BS1 6PN

 

Submission regarding APP/K1128/W/17/3191716

 

South Hams District Council Planning reference: 3137/17/PAT

 

15m high replica telegraph pole mast with 2 base units

Sit location: Highways Land adjacent to Car Park,

A384, Shinners Bridge,

Dartington

Totnes

Devon. TQ9 6JD

Dear Sir / Madam,

This is my submission regarding the above planning Appeal.

I wish to state clearly that I support the key reasons for and recommendation of refusal cited in the SHDC Case Officer report, and for which I supported and provided a delegated decision of Refusal on 14^thNovember 2017.

Support for local concerns and third party objections:

As a local elected public representative and in my own right I also agree with the many reasons for objection as cited by the many residents, local schools and community groups cited in the reports.  These are valid reasons and none of which have changed.

I also support the many representations that I am aware have been sent into your offices regarding this appeal.  Over ten of these and representations from the local schools (which in turn represent over 100 children and parents) have been copied into myself and I wish to state my support for those very valid objections.

You might be aware that a protest march took place just this week, when over 150 parents and children left the school early to make a public rally for their school, Dartington Primary School to the newly installed 10meter mast on the same site as that proposed as the subject of this Appeal. Their protest was about both the installed 10meter mast and the Appeal for the 15 meter mast.  I entirely support their very valid concerns for the children’s health and wellbeing.

Two separate Planning Applications for masts at the same location:

You might be aware that there has been a recent installation of a 10 meter mast (in exactly the same location as that which is the subject of this appeal) further to the decision taken by South Hams Development Management (Planning) Committee for planning application 4325/17/PAT on 7^thFebruary 2018 based on the Case Officer recommendation by SHDC to Vodafone that Prior Approval was not required.  However at that DM Committee meeting (of which I am a Member) I put forward a motion of refusal which was seconded; however this was lost in the vote of 3:8.

However the same concerns and issues which SHDC found against the current subject of Appeal and this subsequent application for Prior Notification which was granted approval carries significant contradictions and it is with regret that I observe that the difference of 5mters on the height of the mast was sufficient to satisfy the Case Officer and eight of my colleagues on the Planning Committee.  I would like to stress that the local residents were no further addressed in their concerns and reasons for objections in for the 10 meter mast proposal than they were for the shorter 10meter mast.  I see no reason why the decision of Prior Approval not required for the 10meter mast could b used to argue in favour of the 15meter mast, i.e. the subject of this appeal as the 5 meter or 30% difference in the height of an intrusive structure in a picturesque rural village is a substantial difference. However I still stand by my view and that of the residents and other objectors that neither mast has a place in this sensitive location.

While I accept that planning applications can be made for sites and that the presence of another development on the same site does not preclude an application being valid or approved or otherwise; it would appear however that the applicant being the same for both mast structure applications in question, raises the concern of ‘planning by stealth’.  I would have thought that this is not to be welcomed or supported by any planning authority.

I would suggest that Planning Application 4325/17/PAT was passed by a very slight but never the less significant difference from 3137/17/PAT and that difference was simply the five-meter height difference that had material visual significance.

Health and safety concerns:

The key concerns regarding this mast relate to the precautionary principle with regard to health and safety from non-ionising radiation emissions from the proposed mast.  This principle was incorporated into the Principles of Sustainable Development as adopted in Rio de Janiro at the United Nations Earth Summit in 1992 and subsequently underpinned EU Legislation[1].  The Precautionary Principle enshrines the ‘Human Right’ to a safe environment.

While Health Matters in general cannot be challenged as the guidelines used (and approved by Government) says they are safe, we should challenge that very premise as the current guidelines ICNIRP) date back to 1999, almost 20 years ago and there have been many changes to the demand for mobile phone services as well as the power of the transmissions; the cumulative effect will be much more of an issue now.  Before any mobile phone mast is considered for planning permission, in particular when health and safety concerns have been raised, we should ensure that the guidance being applied is in line with current research.

The Government’s own Health and Safety webpage has some useful information, some of which is clearly open to challenge, not least of which is that it is dated 21/05/2001, again over seventeen years old.  On this (at point 15) it recognises the distress to residents living close to masts and at point 20 states”20 A further recommendation of the report was that there should be a programme of independent auditing of sites. It has been agreed that the Radiocommunications Agency (RA), an executive agency of DTI, will commence such a programme and will begin with an audit of base stations sited at schools”  This raises the question “where has this been carried out and what are the results?”.

Other health and safety information and studies are available and make a clear case for public concern about these emissions for example: http://www.mastaction.co.ukand at https://www.radiationresearch.org/…/mob…/mobile-phone-masts/where it is noted that the major city of Paris is addressing this.  The current guidelines need to be updated to incorporate this research and guidance.

In the mid 90’s The Irish Government produced guidelines for the planning authorities to use when mobile phone masts were proposed.  These were based on then current Swedish studies which had raised health and safety concerns.  The basic guidance was:

• Masts should not be sited within 1kilomenter of schools, kindergartens, residences or workplaces
• Masts should be monitored for their emissions on a regular basis

Children’s lives should not be put at risk as part of an experiment.  The Glenville Tower tragedy should be a lesson to all decision makers about complacency and following paper trails rather than common sense and a prudent precautionary approach.  Before any mast is installed a base line map of current non-ionising emissions should be presented to the planning authority and a further map indicating the anticipated cumulative effect on those baseline readings based on possible maximum radiation at any on time.  Remember school children are in school and outside playing during peak usage times for mobile phone and associated likely emissions from masts.

Failure to properly consult with or consider other potentially suitable locations:

The local schools and Community Centre:

Immediate vicinity:

• Bidwell Brook special needs school
• Robins Respite Centre for special needs students
• Dartington Primary School
• Dartington Academy
• Meadowbrook Community Centre + outdoor play area and swimming pool
• Dartington Village Hall

 

Less than 1 km distance:

• Park School, Dartington
• Steiner School at Hood, Dartington
• King Edward VI Community College

None of these important community facilities were properly consulted and all are deeply concerned about the impact of a mobile phone mast so close.

One of the requirements of the planning process is that operators should consider a range of sites and justify why they select a certain site. The list of sites put forward with the planning application listed in the submitted Declaration of Conformity – Document 3241784 were not consulted either. Having spoken to a number of local people it seems that those who should have been contacted for these other sites, were not contacted, in particular the schools, who should also have been asked for the views on the proposal to site the mast where it is now installed. This is a material planning consideration that seems to have been flouted.

The Parish Council has offered to discuss with the Applicant other possible sites that could be far more suitable; in particular within the context of its Neighbourhood Plan group this exercise could provide a site that meets more of the preferential options for the location of a mast.

Under the Localism Legislation 2012 this would be a far more conciliatory way to assist th local community in determining what it needs and where such structures could be located.

Visual Amenity:

This mast was considered extremely likely to have a significant adverse impact on Visual Amenity in a rural village centre, in particular one with a high tourism and visitor footfall. The artist’s impression with the planning application was misleading as it suggested this mast would be within a row of much higher trees; trees that are actually on the other side of the road – this mast stand would alone and be very visible.

This has been borne out by the recent installation of the approved 10meter mast. It stands out in the landscape in an obtrusive way and detracts significantly from the village centre and the historic rural landscape setting.

Without reservation I restate my continued objection to this planning application and the appeal that has been lodged.  I would like the opportunity to represent the local residents and groups who object to this planning application and the appeal thereon.

Yours faithfully,

Jacqi Hodgson

Cllr. Jacqi Hodgson

 

 

[1]The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) generally defines actions on issues considered to be uncertain, for instance applied in assessing risk management. The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.

In some legal systems, as in law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement in some areas of law.

 

National Consultation on Gypsy & Traveller Sites: on powers for dealing with unauthorised developments and encampments. The national consultation document closes on Friday June 15^that 23.45pm; documents can be found here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/697354/Consultation_-_unauthorised_encampments.pdf.

Response by Cllr Jacqi Hodgson

Unauthorised development and encampments

Q1What evidence is there of unauthorised development and encampments in your community and what issues does this raise for the local community?

There is quite a lot of unauthorised development in the Devon County Council Division of Totnes & Dartington that I represent.  A lot of this is addressed by planning enforcement where residents are invited to apply for retrospective planning permission.  There are at least ten unauthorised encampments.  With regard to unauthorised development, this is generally only challenged where there has been a complaint raised, however illegal encampments, particularly those on roadsides have caused considerable issues for myself as a local Councillor and the parish councils in my division where housed residents have complained as they are concerned about the welfare of the temporary residents; &/or concerned about lack of facilities for domestic waste and sewage and /or sometimes are hostile, upset and occasionally feel threatened by the presence of these illegal residents and / or their dogs. Some local employers have complained that this can impact on their trade and local tourism.

 

Powers for dealing with unauthorised encampments

 Q2       We would like to invite evidence of unauthorised encampments which have occurred in the last 2 years as follows:

1. The number of instances where trespassers have occupied land without authorisation, including the location and scale of the encampment
2. Whether the land in a0 required cleaning or repair once the encampment had lft, and if so what was the cost?
3. C) how was each encampment encouraged to leav, how long did it take, and was the local authority able to move them on; or did the police became involved?

 South Hams District Council and Devon County Council will have more accurate the information for this question than I would have.  However I’m very aware that there has been a rapidly growing number of unauthorised encampments in my division which comprises 4 parishes and a market town. This falls within South Hams as the local planning authority; they calculate the number of gypsy and traveller pitches in the District as 5, Devon County Council estimates the actual number of pitches needed in this District as 80.  The discrepancy is due to how the residents of these encampments are recognised, i.e. whether or not they are ‘real’ travellers.  Some camps are ignored unless there is a complaint, in which case planning enforcement and sometimes evictions I’m aware of have taken up to 24 months and 6 months respectively.  However some unauthorised encampments are ‘tolerated’ where they do not attract complaints.

(By the way your penultimate word in this question should be become, not became).

 

Streamlining the powers under which local authorities can direct unauthorised campers to leave land

 Q3       Do you think that the existing powers made available to local authorities to remove unauthorised campers from land are effective

Yes as far as removing them is concerned.  However the lack of recognition for some people’s preference for this lifestyle and providing properly serviced traveller halting sites is central to addressing this issue. It is certainly not an effective method of helping people (many of who are on a low income or prefer to live in a caravan) to be locally accommodated and part of the local community.

 

Q4       Do you think local authorities could improve their use of existing powers?

Yes by recognition for some people’s preference for this lifestyle without discriminating as to whether they are ‘recognised’ gypsy or travellers and providing properly serviced traveller halting sites to meet this growing need.

 

Q5       What other powers may help local authorities deal with unauthorised encampments?

National recognition of all travellers as being eligible to have their needs for sites considered eligible by LAs.  The National Planning Policy Framework to include this recognition and provide advice and guidance for serviced halting sites.

 

Aggravated trespass

Q6       Do you consider that the current powers for police to direct trespassers to leave land are effective?

I don’t have a lot of personal experience to help me address this question, but I would caution against too many powers to prevent access to land as this can just create fear and division. Also with declining numbers of police officers there is no point in increasing their powers if they are unable to effectively and fairly enforce.

 

Q7       Would any new or revised powers that enable police to direct trespassers to leave land make it easier to deal with unauthorised encampments?

This depends on why and how the trespassers are being ‘dealt’ with.  Generally local authorities make their enquires in an informed and thoughtful way, considering the needs of the trespassers as well as the landowners.  With rising costs of housing many more people, particularly young people are struggling to afford accommodation, for them bing dealt with by a local authority with housing responsibilities means they are more likely to be assisted towards appropriate accommodation rather than simply ‘evicted’ or ‘moved on’. This can be a far more sustainable result for all concerned.

 

Q8       Do you consider that the Government should consider criminalising unauthorised encampments, in addition to the offence of aggravated trespass?  If so how should a new offence differ, and what actions and circumstances should it apply to?

No, I consider that the legislation is place is adequate to protect landowners

 

Use of injunctions to protect land

Q9       What barriers are there to the greater use of injunctions by local authorities, where appropriate, and how might they be overcome?

 By provision of an adequate of properly serviced halting sites that (those who can afford it) occupants pay rental for their pitch.  Also changes as previous described in the NPPF to accommodate those who wish to live on the roadside.

 

Joint working between local authorities, communities and the police

 Q10     Do you have any suggestions or examples of how local authorities, the police, the courts and communities can work together more successfully to improve community relations and address issued raised by unauthorised encampments?

 Where there are Neighbourhood Plans being locally developed these can provide a useful vehicle to consider local serviced halting sites in those parishes.  A district wide Traveller Forum has been found to be successful in Teignbridge where a very popular legal traveller site has since been established; this would be very helpful in bringing different stakeholders to gather in other areas too.  A set up of this nature would help with the provision of appropriate sites to accommodate local needs.  Pitch lists car to Housing lists could be held by Local Authorities for people to be listed to have their needs logged and support them with information about local pitches that may become available (this would of course require authorised sites to be locally available) Critical to this kind of progress is a change in the recognition by central government of all travellers; i.e. not discriminated by virtue of whether individuals qualify as a genuine gypsy or traveller as those definitions were based historically when people and families lived differently and social mobility was less frequent.  Many of the current travelling community do not have these historical connections but never the less are living in a similar (if not identical) way to the recognised G&T communities.

 

Court Processes

 Q11     Are there ways in which court processes might b modified in a proportionate way to ensure unauthorised encampments can be addressed more quickly

The best modification would be for these high handed legal processes to be rendered unnecessary by virtue of an improved system to meet local needs – including those of the travelling community (much of which I’ve already described).  Many travellers who come before court would find paying legal fees and fines very difficult and make their financially challenging situation even more difficult.  For some this could put them at risk of homelessness (which can add additional costs on to Local Housing Authorities) Similarly such processes can simply be an additional expensive charge on the public purse.  Generally these processes only benefit the lawyers.

 

Interim Possession Orders

 Q12     In your view, what would the advantages and disadvantages be of extending the IPO process to open land?

 I consider that this could provide the opportunity for draconian powers that could lead to considerable distress and possibly infringe human rights legislation on the individual(s) concerned.  As previously stated, the current interventions available to Local Authorities are more that adequate

 

Powers for dealing with unauthorised development

Q13     Are you aware of any specific barriers which prevent the effective use of current planning enforcement powers?

Lack of financial and officer resources in Local Authorities creates considerable time delays in my experience.

 

Q14     If you are aware of any specific barriers to effective enforcement, are there any resourcing or administrative arrangements that can help overcome them?

 The austerity measures have led to considerable financial and subsequent staffing challenges in the last ten years.  The knock on effect is considerable on all levels of public services and enforcement cases have tended to be low on the priority list, possibly because there is always the chance that they will sort themselves out over time.  Additional financial resourcing of local authorities would be extremely beneficial to all their services including enforcement.

 

Q15     Are you aware of any specific barriers which prevent the effective use of temporary stop notices?  If so do you have a view on how these barriers can be overcome?

No

 

Improving the efficiency of enforcement notice appeals

Q16     How do you think the existing enforcement notice appeals process can be improved or streamlined?

 By providing those being challenged with realistic options to help them comply with UK law

 

Government Guidance

Q17     How can Government make existing guidance more effective in informing and changing behaviour?

By providing those being challenged with realistic options to help them comply with UK law.

 

Q18     If future guidance was issued as statuory guidance, would this help in taking action against unauthorised development and encampments?

 Generally there is adequate statutory guidance (that I am aware of) that enables Local Authorities to take legal action against unauthorised development.  However there os a need for future national guidance that addresses all travellers, i.e. not discriminate, by not recognising in planning the fast growing new sector of non-traditional gypsies and travellers. This would enable planning authorities to respond to unauthorised encampments in their area as evidence of need for authorised serviced halting sites.  Most people don’t want to break the law, but with housing costs rising it has become more difficult for many young people and families to afford housing and they are being forced into illegal camps.  For others this is a lifestyle choice, a low carbon lifestyle living lightly on the earth and closer to nature.  (A low carbon lifestyle impinges far less on others and helps the UK to meet its carbon reduction targets).  A wider definition of recognition would enable a more comprehensive approach to the issue of unauthorised encampments.

 

Planning and traveller site provision

Q19     Are there any specific barriers to the provision of more authorised permanent and transit sites?  If so, is there any action that the government could take to help overcome those barriers?

The specific barriers that I am aware of are the government’s failure to include the fast growing new sector of non-traditional gypsies and travellers.  If this could be addressed as a matter of urgency, it would enable all travellers to be evidenced for local needs that can be addressed by Local Authorities then able to support the provision of authorised permanent and transit sites in response to identified need.  (I spoke at the public inquiry this year for the new local plan – South Hams, West Devon & Plymouth Joint Local Plan – where the Inspector expressed her regret that the discrepancy between South Hams identified need of 5 pitches compared to DCC identified need of 80 pitches could not be addressed in this local plan as the government did not recognised non Gypsy and Traveller persons living as travellers).  In turn such a recognition would affect public perception of travellers and probably be more supportive of meeting local needs by supporting the provision of local authorised sites.  This would help considerable in building good community relations, bonds and resilience.

 

Impacts on the traveller community

 Q20     What impact would extending local authority, police or land owners have on children and families and other groups with protected characteristics that public authorities must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to under their Public Sector Equality Duty?

 I would anticipate that increasing the formal powers could cause considerable distress to families and their children on the receiving end of additional new powers of enforcement. Adding distress to people living on a low income in sometimes difficult circumstances can be counterproductive and push those people into further difficulties.  This could possibly infringe their human rights.

 

Q21     Do you expect that extending the powers referred to above would have a positive or negative impact on the health or educational outcomes of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities?  If so, do you have any evidence to support this view, and/or suggestions for what could be done to mitigate or prevent any negative impacts?

I would anticipate that extending the powers as described would have an adverse impact on the health and wellbeing of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and individuals living in this accommodation.  Any extended powers should only be considered if extended provision of authorised permanent or transit sites that all persons living in temporary mobile accommodation are entitled to move to; i.e. any enforced move should be accompanied with somewhere suitable and affordable to move to.

 

Other Comments

Q22     Do you have any other comments to make on the issue of unauthorised development and encampments not specifically not addressed by any of the questions above.

 In my experience, bigger players such as large developers (e.g. building estates of 15+ houses) are far more likely to ‘get away with unauthorised development, often quite significant changes to that for which they have planning permission, compared to that of the individual householder, or an illegal roadside dweller.  Wildlife crime which I frequently report on is hardly ever responded to and wiley developers get away with shameful crimes that can have a major impact on local habitats.  Planning enforcement should be fair and proportionate. 

The lack of recognition of all persons living in temporary and/or mobile accommodation is central to the problem of where they can legally and safely site these homes.  It is my view that this is a form of cultural discrimination and increases the hostility towards people who are living in this way. Such unrecognised persons are termed ‘Rough Sleepers’ by Local Authorites, who in fact they are travellers like the rest of the people with whom they share that lifestyle.  A more comprehensive approach parallel to meeting regular housing needs of all travellers could set a nw tone for addressing this growing situation (which is also a symptom of the current housing crisis). It would be better to spent public money and public administration time on provision of authorised permanent and transit sites to meet needs, rather than spend additional funds and resources drafting, administering and enforcing draconian legislation that will only benefit the lawyers.

 

Consultation response proforma – your details

Q23 Your details

Surname:         Hodgson

First Name:     Jacqueline (Jacqi)

Title:                Councillor (County, District & Town)

Address:          9, Argyle Terrace

City / Town:    Totnes

Postal Code:    TQ9 5JJ

Telephone No:01803 840526

Email address:jacqihodgson@gmail.com

 

Q24     Are the views expressed on this consultation your own personal views or an official response from an organisation you represent? 

Personal View

Q25     If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please tick the box which best describes your organisation

n/a

 

 

 

The public consultation document is at this link https://new.devon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policies/other-county-policy-and-guidance/south-hams-sac-spd-consultation  I’d recommend you compare this with the current SAC planning protection zone (as we don’t want to lose any protection!) http://www.devon.gov.uk/core-doc-y1-greater-horseshoes-bat-…. Do it for the bats – our wildlife needs all the help it can get (50% of the UK’s wildlife has disappeared in the last 50 years).   

THE CLOSING DATE FOR SUBMISSIONS IS 13th JUNE 2018 at 5pm 

This is my response to the consultation:

Part B: Representation (n.b. public consultation questions followed by my responses).  See also below some template questions you might like to use in making your own submission. Feel free to recycle some of the points I have made in my submission if you wish.

Q1.     Is the Draft Supplementary Planning Document clearly structured and legible?

The Introductory (boxed) statement regarding the status and importance of Greater Horseshoe Bats (GHBs) appears on Page 7 of this document.  Whilst it is appreciated that the early pages of the document outline the proposals, application and next steps, it would have been useful to set the context for the entire raison d’etre of this document to repeat this box on the first page of the document (perhaps below the four photographs where it could have been squeezed in). Otherwise the way that the document has been put together is clear and helpful to understanding the issue and for the unfamiliar it provides clear information about GHB, their needs and habitat requirements.  However the absence of the previous document The Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Planning Zone guidance makes it more difficult for comment based on comparison between the two documents that it is now proposed to move between.  It is appreciated that the maps that were part of the previous/current SAC Planning Consultation Zone were made available at the recent workshops and discussed alongside the proposed SPD but these should be included on the current (albeit difficult to find) public consultation proposals or at least a web-link provided to them.

Q2.     Do you agree with the proposed approach to replacing Strategic Flyways with the Landscape Connectivity Zone? If not, why not?

I do not agree with replacing the Strategic Flyways with the landscape connectivity zone (LCZ).  I think we need both the Strategic Flyways and the new LCZ in the proposed SPD.  While I understand that the rationale for the removal of the flyways is attributed to the need for more widespread protection across the entire area that GHBs actively use for sustenance and foraging, it is well known and documented that they use the natural lines along waterways, tree lines and similar routes that are identified as their flyways for navigation.  When development proposals are considered by LPAs they talk about mitigation, which generally assumes that GHBs will ‘make do’ with some Bat Boxes and / or find another area or flyways to use.  These same areas designated for mitigation can be used and reused by different development proposals, in particular in areas where extensive urbanisation is being developed, such that the overused mitigation area becomes a pinch point; this could provide inadequate habitat or sustenance, foraging etc for the increased numbers of GHBs plus all the other wildlife that will be moved out by the development proposals and expected to survive with that reduced space.  Certainly the major wildlife losses (50%) over the past half a century indicate that this is occurring to the detriment of our wildlife and we should ensure that we put in place workable mitigation and (in line with the emerging JLP) require measures that enhance biodiversity.  GHB do not exist in isolation from the rest of the fauna and flora that occupy their habitats.  GHB are dependent on the network of the natural environment they live alongside and that habitat, previously identified as their Strategic Flyways must be protected as key wildlife corridors as well this new and additional provision of protection of the open spaces including farmland and the edges of the more built up areas of South Devon that they are also known to inhabit.  The Strategic Flyways should be given enhanced protection not only to ensure that there is a rich network of natural habitat that supports GHBs but also ensures links between the SACs to prevent any of them being ‘cut off’ and turned into fragile islands of this already endangered species. I understand that there is a deficit of ecological surveys to support some of the current Strategic Flyways and indeed this will apply to the proposed wider LCZ, however rather than allow this lack of information to be to the detriment of areas that need protection, it would be the benefit to the GHB population and to the wider support and enhancement of biodiversity in South Devon to seek ways to increase the ecological knowledge of the area.  The public are often keen to be involved in local surveys and the Devon Bat Project has carried out excellent work in the past few years with bat surveys that the public can participate in.  I would suggest that this work is supported and mapped as part of the SPD to enable it to be updated and grow as more information from new surveys is incorporated into the knowledge.  I would further suggest that ecological surveys carried out by developers as part of their planning applications are also logged and mapped in this way (this would not mean that additional new surveys can be required for further developments in or around the same site).  Bringing all this information together could dramatically increase our knowledge, understanding and ensure the best possible protection for GHBs as well as all the other species of bats (that are also protected in this area) and the wider wildlife including other protected species such as EU protected Hazel Dormice. Ref 2.2.14 The term Existing Mitigation Features would be better replaced with Existing Sensitive Habitat Features as the latter provides a more informative approach to the feature.  The use of the term Mitigation in the term suggests that mitigation is acceptable, although the document at 2.2.15 suggests that any impacts could have a likely significant effect and would require an HR, i.e. still providing a positive approach to mitigation, a step that could give false hope to a potential development and could be a location where it could be totally inappropriate to allow disturbance or intrusion of a sensitive and important GHB habitat.

Q3.     Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the Landscape Connectivity Zone and Sustenance Zones shown on Figure 1 (also available online at: http://map.devon.gov.uk/DCCViewer/) If not, why not?

The map with the new proposals illustrates a number of GHB roosts outside of the LCZ.  These roots which are not designated as SAC have little protection with regard to sustenance, connectivity or flyways to support those bats using those roosts.  It is my proposal that there should be an additional Buffer Zone that extends a further five Kilometres from the demarcation of the four kilometres LCZ i.e. a total of eight kilometres from the SAC / roost. This would broaden the area within which GHB considerations in the form of Preliminary Ecological Assessments (PEA) would be required for any proposed developments and require more detailed Ecological surveys as triggered within the LCZ.  This would not only provide stronger habitat protection for the bats in the SACs and other roosts in the LCZ, but support connectivity and links with bats using the GHB roosts mapped outside of the LCZ and could help identify more roosts, sustenance and foraging areas and flyways through more ecological surveys being carried out.  This would also be important to the areas where the LCZ is very narrow and extends hardly beyond the 4 km Sustenance Zone.  While I realise that some GHB roosts marked on this proposed map are not designated or protected as SACs, it would be to their advantage and assist with considerations and decisions on development proposals to have at least a minimum of a Sustenance Zone and an LCZ that connected them to other identified roosts together with any potential Strategic Flyways identified to ensure those GHBs are not lost through being cut off from other colonies.  I think the LCZ should extend at least a minimum of 8km from the SSSI / SAC in all directions.  It is not clear why the areas in particular to the North, South and West have been ignored in this way.  I appreciate that these areas do not necessarily connect between the main SSSIs and SACs, but the GHBs will be using those areas and as outlined above there are additional roosts that are not currently designated as SSSI/SAC but will need protection for their interactions with the roosts with designated status

Q4.     Does the Flow Chart help in clarifying which planning applications will require a Habitat Regulations Assessment? If not, how can this be improved?

It would be beneficial to all concerned to understand whether the HRA is a new proposal or to be more widely implemented by all LPAs in the areas mapped as SAC, Sustenance Zone and LCZ.  The relationship between local Planning Application checklists that applicants consult and adhere to and the EIA and HRA documents and triggers that LPA planners complete and apply would be helpful for all concerned.   While the flow chart produced for this consultation reads well and clear it could be overly simplistic given the issues raised above with regard to the planning decision making process in practice

 

 

Q5.     Does the document help to clarify the information which the Local Planning Authority require from the developer? If not, how can this be improved?

There is a lack of clarity in how major difference between the experience I have as a Member of the Planning Committees at South Hams District Council (SHDC) and Devon County Council (DCC) and the reference in this document regarding the triggers for a Habitats Regulations Assessment.  At SHDC there is a Validation Checklist for all the documentation required for a planning application to go forward and in my experience just an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion is carried out for Planning applications, further to which a Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) is considered sufficient and no further ecological surveys are required (e.g the highly contentious 14/0142/15/F at Brimhay, Dartington does not have an HRA, just an EIA assessment although GHB and Hazel Dormice are known to be on site and the site sites within the current and proposed Sustenance Zone for GHB.  Further to which a PEA was advised as sufficient (and the planning committee was advised that the SAC planning boundary was going to be moved back by 3km in 2017 and so that SAC Planning Consultation Zone would not apply – a misleading and incorrect statement).  The Joint Local Plan (JLP) for South Hams, West Devon and Plymouth 2014 – 2034 is currently in the late stages of development. This document as a Supplementary Planning Document will be advisory to the implementation of the JLP.  To give it greater weight in planning decisions and therefore provide the level of protection that is within the detail and spirit of the EU Habitats Directive, I propose that this SPD is escalated to DPD (Development Plan Document) status, as advisory documents can be seen as less important to all parties trying to develop in areas where GHBs need to be fully protected.   Either way and essentially on the potential impact of this document on the population of GHBs as an internationally and nationally protected species in South Devon, this proposed SPD / DPD should be subjected to an SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment).  It is regrettable that this important Local Pan that is at an advanced stage of development is not provided as a link in the listings at the end of the document.  This SPD will (hopefully) provide strong material guidance to the JLP and should have been referenced in that context.

Q6.     Are the proposed arrangements for monitoring and review of the Supplementary Planning Document clear and appropriate?

There is a clear requirement for monitoring expressed in the document, however it would be more useful and probably more helpful to all concerned and provide a greater assurance of effective monitoring being carried out if some minimum requirements for this monitoring and who would be carrying this out were to be set out in in the SPD.  Many development sites are sold on and/or their open space management is conducted by a separate management company once the site has been developed; therefore clarification of how the monitoring and the time scales for ongoing surveys needs to be set out.  Similarly the document’s requirements for mitigation prior to impacts is welcomed (but is currently not the case with new developments in my experience), I would therefore suggest that timescales and who would monitor this is clearly set out in the SPD to provide clear unequivocal guidance.  Again, the public could be encouraged to be involved her and the important role of specialist NGOs such as Devon Wildlife Trust, Devon Bat group etc could be brought together here as part of the back-up for the monitoring.  With encouragement and perhaps information and guidance Neighbourhood Plan groups could be important groups to also assist with monitoring GHBs in their parishes. Review of this SPD?? I could find no mention or reference to this in the document.

Q7.     Do you have any further comments?

It was disappointing that only planners and developers were invited to the special workshop prior to the public drop-in.  (I understand one SHDC Ward Member was told not to attend). That workshop should have been clearly open to all Ward and Division Members across the area of the proposed plan to understand and contribute at the workshop and bring this understanding back to the public they represent who were unable to attend the public workshop.  Far more public engagement and understanding of these proposals needs to be encouraged.  Although I pointed out at the public workshop that this public consultation and the associated documents are not easily accessible on DCC website (and was given assurance that this would be improved) it still takes at least 4 links to access the relevant page that carries documents to study and comment on.  Despite being the main area that this will cover and having a live Local Plan currently being debated, SHDC does not even have any reference to this consultation that I could find on their website.  Whilst it has been appreciated that an additional two weeks has been provided for submissions, the dates littered throughout the on-line pages and documents have both dates and are therefore confusing; please could this be amended before the close of the consultation as some potential commenters could be put off by thinking that they were too late to comment.  I think this amounts to a serious lack of transparency in the public consultation for this important document.  Please could this public consultation be more widely advertised and ALL the relevant documents be made more accessible and easily available asap i.e. BEFORE the close of the consultation to ensure a wide response from all stakeholders.  The lack of reference to Neighbourhood Plans was disappointing; these are important groups and there are currently at least 28 parish wide groups actively putting together plans for their parishes in the South Hams alone.  Their role and understanding of their areas, much of which is being enhanced through their work in developing their NHPlan could provide considerable and much needed additional evidence of wildlife including GHBs in their parishes. Understanding of wildlife, their habitats and biodiversity in general is often seen as a highly specialist subject and with the reduction in nature studies etc in primary education that is likely to increase that image and distance rather than encourage the public to become more involved in wildlife care.  Many people are deeply concerned that we have lost 50% of our wildlife in the UK in the last 50 years and much of this is due to endless encroachment on wildlife areas and chipping away of important ecological habitats.  The JLP mentioned above includes many references to Wildlife corridors but does not give further information in terms of how they can be identified, understood, surveyed, monitored or enhanced, nor is any provision of mapping these features included.  South Devon is full of local people who would be very enthusiastic to be more involved in helping their local wildlife; I would therefore suggest a further SPD of Wildlife Corridors and important habitats to support this SPD and provide a basis for wider protection of all wildlife in South Devon.

Why not make your own submission (it really does help to show public support / concerns on these issues).  I have put together some thoughts and questions that might help you make your submission:

 

1.     Is the Draft Supplementary Planning Document clearly structured and legible?

Possible questions to ask yourself for response?  Do you feel informed about the context of this document and the relevance of the GHB as soon as you start reading the document? Is this document engaging and clear?  Did you get lost in the document?  Is it okay language /jargon wise  Did you need more comparative documents including maps; i.e. regarding the document that this one will replace

2.     Do you agree with the proposed approach to replacing Strategic Flyways with the Landscape Connectivity Zone? If not, why not?

Key points raised:  Do we need both the Strategic Flyways and the new LCZ in the new SPD?   Would this ‘broad brush approach to the wider area be to the detriment of the GHBs (and other wildlife)?  Perhaps the Strategic Flyways should also be known as Wildlife Corridors?  What protection do you think the GHBs and other wildlife need in these areas called LCZ?  Should the Strategic Flyways be given enhanced protection?  Is Mitigation (when wildlife is directed to use elsewhere, e.g. bat boxes, new planting) working?  Should we be seeking enhancement of wildlife areas to increase biodiversity?

3.     Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the Landscape Connectivity Zone and Sustenance Zones shown on Figure 1 (also available online at: http://map.devon.gov.uk/DCCViewer/) If not, why not?

The map with the new proposals illustrates a number of GHB roosts outside of the LCZ.  These roots which are not designated as SAC have little protection with regard to sustenance, connectivity or flyways to support those bats using those roosts.   Should these non-designated roosts also have more protection?  Should there be an additional Buffer Zone that extends a further X Km from the demarcation of the four kilometres LCZ i.e. a total of eight kilometres from the SAC / roost.  How could we get more information about GHBs in this area?  Do we need to require developers for more surveys?  Are the SAC Bat Roosts and the habitats they depend on adequately protected?  Are their links and protected zones identified and adequate to ensure those GHBs are not lost through being cut off from other colonies?

4.     Does the Flow Chart help in clarifying which planning applications will require a Habitat Regulations Assessment? If not, how can this be improved?

Do you think that the relationship between local Planning Application checklists that applicants consult on and adhere to and the EIA and HRA documents and triggers that LPA planners complete and apply are adequately explained and their relationship made clear?  Is the flow chart overly simplistic?  How likely do you consider it will be fully and satisfactorily implemented?

 

5.     Does the document help to clarify the information which the Local Planning Authority require from the developer? If not, how can this be improved?

Does the information and explanations herein match any experience you may of planning decisions that have been made in places where GHBs are known to exist?   Did you consider that there was adequate protection in place and does this document enhance or detract from that protection?  Do you consider that the Joint Local Plan as an emerging Planning document for South Hams, West Devon and Plymouth 2014-2034 should have been given more prominence and clear links of how this SPD is likely to advice and provide strong guidance with regard to that document?  Given the potential impact of this document on the population of GHBs as an internationally and nationally protected species in South Devon, do you consider that this proposed SPD / DPD should be subjected to an SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) (page 3 says not)?

6.     Are the proposed arrangements for monitoring and review of the Supplementary Planning Document clear and appropriate?

Do you feel confident that monitoring is clearly explained and adequate to ensure that mitigation measure proposed will be measured over a long period to ensure the furture of GHBs is not being compromised by development plans that are given approval?  How do you think this could be done when many development sites are sold on and/or their open space management is conducted by a separate management company once the site has been developed? Do you think timescales for monitoring are adequately explained?  Could the public be encouraged to be involved her and the important role of specialist NGOs such as Devon Wildlife Trust, Devon Bat group etc could be brought together as part of the back-up for the monitoring?  Would there be a role for Neighbourhood Plan groups to be involved with monitoring GHBs in their parishes?  Could you find mention of Review of this SPD?

7.     Do you have any further comments?

Did you know about the workshops on May 1st?  Did you attend?  Was this / would this have been helpful?  Were you able to easily find this consultation and all the documents you needed on a website?  Do you think that Parish and Ward Councillors and Neighbourhood Plan groups should have been invited to attend a workshop?  Anything else you want to say?