Community Engagement Panel report to TDBC April 2007

WEST MONKTON COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PANEL

Report of the Community Engagement Panel to Taunton Deane Borough Council Planning Committee


The Community Engagement Panel wishes to place on record the following report. This report is based on analysis of evidence produced by TDBC Planning Officers and The Developers’ Consortium, and a site visit.

Linking the existing with the new
The CEP considers it essential that the existing community and the new development should have every opportunity to integrate. The success of the development hinges on this, and so convenient and attractive routes between the old and the new, and destinations to provide reasons to move between the old and the new areas are therefore highly desirable.
With the proposed calming/access only status of the existing A38 there would seem adequate support for the case to make the existing field footpath with permissive bridleway from the bottom of School Road to the existing A38 into a small 20mph road. This would ensure full vehicular access from both the new development and the existing settlement to the proposed Local Centre, thus encouraging integration of the old with the new and a fully functioning and vibrant local centre. The case for the road access to be granted is strengthened by the fact that the previous objection and reason for denial - namely formation of a junction onto the very busy A38 - would no longer apply, the existing A38 road would be bus gated and access only, and the new A38 would run round the southern part of the development. If the road access is again denied by SCC, then there needs to be an increase in the number of pedestrian route ways between the existing settlement and the proposed settlement. The current plan indicates no more than the existing field footpath, and a road link from the Senior Cricket Pitch area. It should be noted that a road with occasional passing traffic is, at night, a safer pedestrian environment than an isolated footpath as the primary link between old and new. There will be a need for new residents to access the existing shop, the Tacchi Morris Centre and the public elements of the Secondary School.
The site visit allowed the CEP to appreciate the difference in levels, at least one and a half metres, between the field designated for the Local Centre and the existing buildings; suggesting that raised pedestrian bridges from the Local Centre into the existing settlement could be constructed. The developers should be required to state how they propose to handle the changes in level across the land allocated as the Local Centre, whilst maintaining easy access to the Local Centre from across Dyers Brook. The site visit also enabled the CEP to see the extent to which the existing settlement buildings look away from the proposed Local Centre. The buildings are mostly the concrete backs of multiple garage blocks serving the flats, and some backs of domestic gardens.

Achievability
The Community Engagement Panel would suggest that greater proof is needed that the Local Centre is achievable. The exact location should be determined, with a sense of its place in, and connection to, the rest of the proposed development. Clarification is needed about the character of the Local Centre, and the nature of the retail units. It is agreed that a centre of small local shops with housing above and parking for shoppers outside (rather like Priorswood shopping centre) could be successfully achieved. It might be possible, by conditions attached to the outline, to require that a fully detailed application for the Local Centre is submitted as part of the first full/reserved matters application for further development of the site. Care should be taken that the Centre does not become a high density zone with an unfriendly and deterrent character. It might be better to have high density clusters more widely distributed, and some lower density wedges into the Centre. Will there be a Health Centre in the Local Centre?
It is suggested that it is within the powers of the Local Authority to pressure SCC to open a road through from School Road to the existing A38 with a 20mph speed restriction. If this were done it would resolve the integration issue and the issue of access to the Secondary School and Tacchi-Morris centre. Access to the Secondary School is already an issue, and set to get worse when the 900 houses of the proposed development increase pupil numbers further. Disability access would be addressed by such a measure.

Primary School
Whilst the developers have stated they will build a school of the required capacity for the number of houses in the proposed development, the issue of the relocation of the existing Primary School to the same site with corresponding building by Somerset County Council must be resolved very quickly. Currently SCC states that no-one has included the matter in the Local Education Authority budgets set for the future, so it might be useful to supply SCC with the building timescale so that SCC could budget accordingly. The matter is a phasing issue and the primary school is already over-extended. This being so, it might be a case where a detailed set of plans for the school should be submitted for approval in conjunction with the first reserved matter application for new house build, and at least part of the school should be built very early in the development (e.g. not more than 200 houses in).

Dyers Brook
The Community Engagement Panel understands that matters are all but agreed with the Environment Agency apart from some culverting. Following the site visit it is clear that the role of Dyers Brook as a green space and enhanced wildlife corridor needs greater definition. Some of the hedgerow trees should be retained, whilst much of the scrub and bramble should be removed. However this would expose the very negative impact of the garages and backs of houses of the existing settlement - see above. The new tree planting of the area around Dyers Brook needs further definition to ensure that it becomes a safe area of pleasant communal open parkland, not a dangerous and dark dividing barrier between the existing and the new development. The parkland should not have really narrow sections as any narrow length tends to detract from the visual amenity and any sense of safety; a minimum of 15 mtrs and average of 25 mtrs width is suggested.
The Playing Field proposed adjacent to the Local Centre and Dyers Brook poses some questions in terms of levels. The Developers Consortium has stated that the Playing Field would be a raised platform with the area below the playing field used for water storage. The site visit shows a drop in level from the existing footpath into a large bowl-shaped area, open on two sides, several metres deep. The slope of the field before the bowl is a drop of about one and an half metres. Levelling the area to provide a playing field could result in some extremely high banks alongside Dyers Brook, which would entirely alter its ecology. It is suggested that the Planning Authority might wish to see a clear indication of how the ground would be levelled and the location and degree of the slopes. Additionally, the field currently has some interesting botanical specimens growing in it and it is suggested that, as a part of the levelling, some of the top soil should be distributed around the edges of the field to allow the specimens to continue growing.

Bus Gates on A3259 and present A38
Arrangements for traffic calming and which roads will have bus gates need clarification. The CEP understands that the Developers Consortium anticipate traffic calming on the existing A38 will give heart to the Local Centre. However, traffic calming will increase vehicular movement times so will increase the existing problems in School Road at drop-off times. The bus gate on the A3259 will calm the A3259 at the cost of traffic to/from the north of the existing village being diverted onto the road just south of the cricket pitch and then in or out through the northernmost roundabout on the A38. Traffic from the south not intended for the existing village will be diverted through Milton Hill to the A38 Eastern relief Road. It is suggested that TDBC should ensure that the diversion routes can be engineered to handle the volume of traffic (plus anything from the Western Relief Road when it materialises): is the standard of provision adequate?

Conflict between current Outline Application 48/2005/072) and Hookipa Developments Ltd (Hatcheries) roundabout application 48/2007/019
The Community Engagement Panel seeks information regarding the position taken by TDBC Planners. Will the two applications be considered together?
It has been stated by the Developers’ Consortium that theirs is a redline application. The CEP would suggest that TDBC planners need to protect the development by controls/sanctions/inducements to ensure that conditions associated with the Outline Application are met. TDBC are urged to explore every avenue to ensure that the Developers Consortium cannot subsequently evade or negate conditions imposed or assurances given at this stage.
It is recommended that a S106 is imposed to ensure the last piece of the relief road will be built at the 700 houses level - if not, TDBC should be prepared to impose a CPO on the land at the western end of the relief road from Milton Hill to the existing A3259.
Given that the bus gates give northbound traffic from Taunton on the A3259 a choice of either Milton Hill and doubling back onto the Eastern Relief Road, or of passing through the existing village and going onto the road south of the cricket pitch, which may seem more direct, the location of the southern roundabout is questionable. It will be an intrusion into the green wedge, and will have a strong visual impact on the amenity of the canal side and the St Quintins area.

Roads within the proposed development
Vehicular access to the Local Centre needs to be part of the Outline Application, to see how vehicles will move through it. The network of routes within the residential areas should be truly permeable so that people can move from one place to another. The Developers Consortium stated that Dyers Brook, Green Lane, and existing hedgerows have created a number of ’parcels’ which will develop their own identities and have their own open spaces. What has been indicated on the map looks permeable, but is in fact a series of cul de sacs so movement from one area to another is not possible. This serves to deny integration of the new community within itself, and also with the existing community.

Landmark buildings and other buildings
Landmark buildings have not so far been defined although locations are marked on the map. The success of the Local Centre will be influenced by the quality and design of landmark buildings in this location, which should emphasise work/life relaxation and draw people in. By ‘Landmark buildings’ we do not necessarily mean that they should be tall or have some extraordinary/exotic architectural language - merely that they will provide a confident, distinct and memorable presence - providing a built identity to which old and new residents of the village might successfully relate. The Developers Consortium could consider some form of architectural competition for the commission of these buildings, which might allow a fuller and creative exploration of their potential qualities. The Developers Consortium has indicated that the High Street will be one-sided with significant buildings along the route and changes in architectural form. The CEP understands that the Local Authority supports two-storey development, and the Developers Consortium indicates that most of the site will be that, although they would support two and a half storey buildings in some places. The CEP suggests that consideration of existing buildings should be taken into account in the design of adjacent new buildings. Much of the settlement at Bathpool on the main road and down Brittons Ash is single-storey bungalow style, so it is expected that adjacent new buildings will be sympathetically designed, not overpowering.

Employment Land
The CEP suggests that provision within the commercial premises design codes should be made to allow for exceptional buildings as well as sheds, although the coding needs, in the first instance, to be robust enough to deal with the latter. Structural landscaping is important in these areas, with plenty of variety. The orientation of the two employment areas on the Creech St Michael side of the development area may need to be reconsidered as they are very overlooked from the motorway and landscaping would not have any effect.

LEAPs and NEAPs
Both TDBC and the Developers Consortium have indicated that these are matters requiring resolution and the final location of the LEAPs and NEAPs needs consideration. It is suggested that the NEAP should be situated in a position where it can be overlooked to prevent vandalism and inappropriate behaviour. People need to know where the LEAPs and NEAPS will be and the form they will take before they buy houses.

Trees
The CEP is pleased to note that the Tree Survey has been updated and members of the CEP will be identifying the trees currently protected by TPOs. The Developers Consortium has stated that top quality trees will be kept but that roads have to be fitted in. It is seen as important, therefore, to identify and protect significant hedgerows, trees, and venerable oaks. The Developers Consortium is to be commended in their retention of the hedgerows of Green Lane. The CEP notes the proposed ‘Orchard Trail’, starting at Langaller Manor Farm, and considers it an interesting idea worth supporting. They would welcome further information about how the fledgling trees would be protected and maintained. It is suggested that TDBC planners and the Developers Consortium should consult Mr and Mrs Small at Charlton Orchards, and also the TDBC Tree Town Project Officer.

Other comments
It is noted that the Jaguar showroom on the northern side of the existing A38 at Bathpool is not shown on the map. The Landrover garage and the ATS depot, directly opposite on the south side, are shown. This omission should be corrected before the application is considered.

Not all existing field ponds are shown on the map. The site visit revealed a number not shown. Again, these omissions should be corrected.

The site visit showed that the Hatcheries, in third party ownership, has significant employment frontage, not shown on the map. For many people this will be the first sight they have of the whole Monkton Heathfield development, so the map should be amended and measures put in place accordingly.