Friday 18th December 2015
Rosag attended the TDBC full council meeting on Tuesday 15th to hear the debate on the North Taunton Development Framework Plan.
In attendance were James Turner from PM Asset Management [ PMAM -site promoters for the east of the site] and a WARG member who along with RoSAG had registered to speak.
One of our two ward councillors and our county councillor were in the chamber. Neither spoke on the relevant agenda item.
RoSAG's question related to SCC refusing [under the Freedom of information act [FOI] ] to answer our requests regarding highways issues. We therefore asked if TDBC whom we felt sure would have had such discussions with the County could share this information with us - in particular the width of the spine road and the connections to both Staplegrove and Kingston roads.
WARG focused on seeking confirmation that the council was still confident that employment figures, an indicator originally of the need to build new houses, were as originally identified. Their focus was also on the size of the green wedge being within acceptable guidelines, concern that Raghill should not have houses built on it and the need for a completed spine road.
Cllr Roger Habgood has the portfolio for planning policy and transportation and was charged with answering our questions. Back in May , soon after the elections he contacted RoSAG requesting a meeting with us. We suggested our diary was more flexible than his and suggested he forwarded us dates and times. We have followed this up on numerous occasions but still await a reply!
Cllr Habgood's reply to RoSAG was " we [TDBC] work hard with county ------" He would take our question back to SCC and " ask if anything could be put in the public domain". [In the first week of January unless we have had a reply we have it in the diary to write to him for an update!]
In his reply to WARG he confirmed that he had confidence in the employment figures as identified in the Core Strategy as an indicator of the number of houses needed in the area!
When the item came to accept the recommendation to adopt the Framework [ as per amendments previously detailed], it was approved.
The Framework Plan continues to look at the houses in isolation to the wider infrastructure, in particular, highways. This was a point picked up on by Cllr Morrell as a concern across Taunton.
A planning application is expected to be submitted in January. Watch this space!
Friday 4th December 2015
RoSAG attended both SADMP Initial Hearings on the 1st & 2nd December. Staplegrove (TAU2) was discussed on the first day with Comeytrowe/Trull (TAU1) on the second day.
For Staplegrove on the 1st there were representatives from Historic England, TDBC, Origin3, Natural England, Somerset County Council, Staplegrove Parish Council plus many members of the public.
The Inspector Mr. Paul Griffiths set the agenda by explaining that the initial hearing was to discuss habitat and historic environment issues only.
It was then explained as to how the calculation for a sustainable habitat was arrived at. This included a time period for the new environment to mature so as to allow migration from areas that were about to be developed. It was explained that building phasing would assist this process. Also considered was the effect of the spine road and lighting with regard to the environment. It was noted that most of the habitat issues were in the east of the proposed development.
With regard to the historic environment these centered around Pyrland Hall, Oakhills, Yarde Farm House and Staplegrove conservation area. The main concern seemed to be the setting in which the buildings or areas are currently in and whether the policies in the SADMP go far enough to protect them. There was much discussion from all parties with regard to the listed buildings mentioned with the Inspector taking on board comments which he said would help him make an informed decision. It was also suggested that TDBC might like to consider a "Heritage Conservation Strategy" to assist when dealing with heritage assets.
Since the Inspector had made it known that any other matters other than those on the agenda would not be discussed RoSAG asked if there would be further hearings where matters such as highway infrastructure, health and education could be debated. The feeling was that assuming he was happy with the policies relating to habitat and historic environment he would then move on and arrange hearings to discuss the wider issues. This would only happen if he felt there was concern, which, given the feeling at both days hearings, we feel that he was aware of such a concern.
Day 2 covered Comeytrowe and followed a similar pattern, although, because of the recent deferment of the planning application, Infrastructure was discussed. Again Mr. Griffiths explained that he was only able to consider Infrastructure in relation to habitat or the historical environment and this was made more difficult since a planning application had already been made.
The hearing finished with a summary from Mr. Griffiths who said he would visit the areas of concern and make an initial report covering what had been discussed. It looks like, however, that any future hearings will not be until after the next planning meeting (January 27th 2016) as they need a 6 week lead time in order for people to prepare.
Further bedtime reading can be found on the TDBC website. Follow the link below.
Site Allocations and Development Management Plan
Thursday 12th November 2015
TDBC Executive Committee Meeting held on Wed 11th November to discuss the North Taunton Framework Plan
These were the main discussion points amongst the 8 councillors on the Executive :
Members of RoSAG both spoke and sent in statements to the council regarding the proposals. A few of these are outlined below.
I draw your attention to the following bullet points which are elaborated upon in full in the text below and seek your full consideration.
1.Suddenly, this Summer at the final public consultation after 2 -3 years the site promoters introduced a second and preferred, southerly option! Simultaneously there was a sudden shift to start development in the middle of the site rather than the original proposal of east and west sides with entrances to and from the site via Kingston and Staplegrove Roads.
The middle of the site is the most attractive plot to development companies as it has always been “promised” for the larger and more prestigious housing but this means developers now need a more convenient initial route in and out of the site. This route, is not written into any documents but was shown on a board at July’s final public consultation as dropping down onto Corkscrew Lane / Manor Road. This is a bendy and narrow road with existing traffic calming. SCC and TDBC have repeatedly said this road can’t take any more traffic.
And although site promoters say this would be a temporary measure until the spine road is completed the intention to complete the spine road is when the 500th house is built – Several years is not temporary.
The introduction of this southern, and preferred option so late on and without any justification can therefore can only be interpreted as being more financially attractive since the desired start point for build is now in the middle of the site.
Following the completion of house no 500, to permanently close what in effect will be a properly constructed, new road with proper signage seems highly improbable and would very likely be fiercely contested by those residents then being forced to use a labyrinth of estate roads to access the official spine road!
2.Manor Road/ Corkscrew Lane cannot take another possible 1000 cars plus the associated vehicles servicing these properties – deliveries, utility providers, small business contractors etc. Official traffic counts already show this road as carrying as many as up to 700 vehicles in a single hour! More standing traffic due to overcapacity will exacerbate pollution levels for existing residents.
3.The officers’ report clearly outlines the many advantages of the northern alignment as a suitable design for traffic including buses and cyclists.
In addition it would mean less noise pollution for Staplegrove Village as there would be more new housing to absorb some of the noise. In addition the green wedge would not be cut in half and isolate existing residents in Whitmore Lane from Staplegrove Village which is their recognised local neighbourhood.
4.The very same report advises adoption of the northern route unless it proves undeliverable. Nowhere is this term “undeliverable” defined. RoSAG would urge councillors when making their recommendations to not leave the term undeliverable as an open ended statement . Councillors should determine criteria for what is deemed acceptable as the northern alignment being “ undeliverable “. The northern alignment must be the sole option agreed prior to an application for planning permission being submitted..
5. On the Conservative Home website, 9/06/15. Cllr Williams said
“Following our election campaign we are conscious that our infrastructure must keep pace with our housing growth. This was the message on the doorstep we received, loud and clear.”
And in her election leaflet April 2015 Rebecca Pow said
“I have been working with the Council and developers to ensure that things such as transport links and school places are delivered in a timely manner”.
6.The need for Taunton’s huge future housing numbers, as well as being based on future growth in population was also partly based on local employment increasing. The major employers in Taunton are public services which, regrettably, are suffering cutbacks. Over the period 2009-2013 Somerset’s own statistics show that local employment has fallen by 4.9% . Despite optimistic projections employment prospects in our area do not seem to improve. We see many younger people leaving the area to work elsewhere and / or leaving colleges and universities and not returning to Taunton.
Jobs have to exist in an area before people move in. Building houses in the hope of attracting people to Taunton but without the prospect of employment is an ill-conceived approach.
The Norton Fitzwarren and Monkton Heathfield developments still remain unfinished due to slow sales.
RoSAG would suggest to you that the number of houses required in North Taunton be re-evaluated and adequate infrastructure put in place before any more development takes place in Taunton.
7.RoSAG would also request that the wording in the officers’ report, as voted for by the vast majority of members of the Scrutiny committee on Nov 3rd [ all voted in favour with 2 abstentions] is added to Section 11 2] i]
This wording does not appear in the version of the officers’ report presented to yourselves for this evening’s meeting . Yet other changes [ some not discussed and voted for] do appear!
Section 11 2]i] states
“Proposals should demonstrate how the proposed spine road accords with Policy TAU2 by providing for a future eastward extension to complete an orbital route around North Taunton, and the detailed alignment and design of the spine road should be agreed by the Borough Council.”
The Scrutiny Committee voted in favour for the italicised wording to be added to the end of that paragraph “--------should be agreed by the Borough Council who have already indicated a strong preference for a northern alignment.”
Thank you
Jackie
Pp RoSAG [ Residents of Staplegrove Action Group]
....................................................................................................................................................................................
No mention is made of existing and future traffic problems in Hope Corner Lane. If the proposed new link roads for Staplegrove and Nerrols go ahead without an extension to complete an Orbital Road around North Taunton, traffic will use Hope Corner Lane/Cheddon Road as one. The middle part of Hope Corner Lane is single track and is a traffic 'bottleneck' in either direction!
(Appendix A - Amendment B September 2015, see Key Diagram 2: Taunton (Proposed New Roads) - Page 7 of FMP and Development Brief refers)
Surely, the Orbital Road must be completed ahead of any development at Staplegrove - without it the traffic problems in Hope Corner Lane will become intolerable! (An orbital road has been talked about for the past 45 years and nothing has happened yet!)
Staplegrove is wrongly placed for any new housing development. The building of 1500 houses will greatly increase the population of North Taunton. Lack of funding dictates that there is little prospect of any improvement in already inadequate bus services. This will only add to existing traffic problems in Staplegrove and the surrounding area.
A Resident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I consider that the proposed North Taunton Development at Staplegrove is wholly inappropriate for the following reasons:-
1. The existing road system cannot cope with current traffic, let alone any increase. The spine road will merely add extra traffic to existing hotspots, rather than divert it away, until a northern orbital road is completed. As such, this proposed development is on the wrong side of town for access to the motorway, which is where people will need to get to for employment.
2. Taking a more overall view, the population of Taunton town is around 30,000 dwellings. The proposed developments of Staplegrove, Priorswood, Monkton Heathfield and Comeytrowe total around 9000 dwellings. That’s a 30% increase. How would the infrastructure cope?
3. The Requirement for 17,000 houses within Taunton Deane as defined in the core strategy is based on an evidence base (Future Housing Requirements - Fordham Research) which in turn is based on a certain increase in local employment. I note that employment in Taunton Deane is falling (-4.9% from 2009 to 2013. Source - SCC Somerset Intelligence). Surely this requires re-evaluation. Out-of-date consultant’s recommendations should not be a basis for action.
4. Finally, of all the large scale developments planned around Taunton, this is the one closest to an AONB, and furthest from major transport links.
A Resident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I live at ............, Staplegrove. Taunton. I have lived here for over 25 yrs, currently surrounded on 3 sides by open fields.
The proposed North Development plan will see the destruction of acres of unique wildlife habitat and open space which is enjoyed by residents of Taunton Deane & beyond.
I am not opposed to all housing development in the area, I am however very concerned by the sheer scale of these proposals and the impact on my community.
Staplegrove has approximately 900 homes and has over the years seen a huge growth of developments, Bindon Road, Showell Park, Cross Keys etc. The whole of North Taunton appears to be one building site at the moment. Norton Fitzwarren, Monkton Healthfield, The old Market.
These proposals indicate up to 1500 new homes. This is by its sheer size defined as a Town... Swamping Staplegrove and destroying our community. While leaving roads gridlocked for all road travellers.
The original proposals originally stated approximately a maximum 650 homes. The increase in numbers has not been explained. At a time when employment is going down, will we just become a commuter town for people to Travel to Exeter or Bristol or gridlocked Taunton Roads.
The infrastructure required to support a small town is not in place, nor is there any proposed highways network to take the additional 2-3000 vehicles. This is the responsibility of Somerset County Council and they do not appear to have the funds necessary.
There are a number of issues
1. The size & scale of the proposals are completely out of keeping with the local area. 1500 will swamp us destroying the whole area for miles around... It will be a blot on the landscape and will be seen for miles & in particular from the Quantocks as a huge scar across our countryside.
2. There has been very little opportunity to discuss our concerns with the developers. I received a flier for the public meeting on 4th July with an email address asking for comments. I tried for several weeks to send in my comments... The email address was not usable & my comments kept bouncing back... Many residents had the same problem... Was this deliberate? When it was working it was past the date for them to accept our comments.
3. The proposed Spine Road will become a rat run for those trying to avoid the bottlenecks. It's proposed location runs right past my home creating considerable noise & light pollution. Let alone the disruption of dirt & noise during the building stage. The bottlenecks that it create will cause frustration by all road users & make Taunton even less attractive to potential home owners.
4. At a time when Taunton Deane has a number of housing developments underway & also has 1000 empty properties why is the is Plan being pushed through at this time. It is surely better for us to consolidate what we have, review the impact on roads, schools & the environment rather than pushing ahead with this plan?
5. There is the offer of other land, well documented in the local paper, why not wait to see what proposals come from that area, already adjacent to the A358?
6. There appears to be undue haste in pushing ahead with this plan that was conceived several years ago with info that is out of date. We have since the plans conception seen a huge economic downturn.
7. Why so many homes in this one area,may town swamping a community?
8. Are you completely satisfied that this is the right plan at the right place, at the right time?
9. I ask you to look deep within your hearts & defer this proposal allowing more work to be undertaken & smaller plans to be put forward. Once we loose this land in this beautiful location it will be gone for ever. On a day when we commemorate all those who gave their lives for our freedom. Did they really think this council would destroy the most beautiful of Taunton Deane.
A Resident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with the speakers from the public, who spoke to the Scrutiny Committee about;
The huge size of the development; the lack of holistic planning of infrastructure, particularly of roads in Staplegrove and Taunton; the lack of employment; the probable movement of people to the M5 to access work elsewhere.
1) I would like to endorse changes made by the Scrutiny Committee, especially with regard to the alignment of the spine road to the North. This would help to improve its impact on the much narrower area of development to the west, in (old) Staplegrove.
2) The idea of 'distinctive' neighbourhoods for this 'new town' is important, especially in the west, where the housing could be very dense because of its narrower shape here. Sensitivity to not allowing new housing dominate and overwhelm the existing settlement of 'old' Staplegrove is essential. There are many bungalows next to the boundary.
3) It is essential that the green wedge is retained to the maximum extent but little has been suggested to maintain open green areas in the west, where the narrowness of the development intensifies the impact of building. Lots of screening will be needed at the least. The field leading to/from The Grove should not be spoilt by building.
I would like to put forward my real concerns about the following;
a) the likely increase in flooding into areas which have not yet experienced this. The slopes from the Rag Hill area will cause an excess of runoff when the surfaces are made impermeable by buildings and roads.
b) pollution of all kinds, particularly air, noise and light, will increase to spoil the lives of all residents and blight people's health. Planners ought to consider such costs, as costs to the Health service in the area.
c) to try to offset some of the bad effects of this new town on our doorsteps, it is only correct that public footpaths, especially that of the West Deane Way, are properly conserved and greened to allow a small concession to people's health, happiness and well being.
I believe that this planned development is being brought forward too hastily. There are so many piecemeal developments, most unfinished, that are turning Taunton into a nightmare of a place to live. Surely it is the duty of our representatives to think and look again at the whole plan for Taunton. It needs to be a worthy and attractive County town, not a building site to be escaped or avoided.
A Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda item 5. Approval of the North Taunton Framework Plan
In principle I agree and support most of the recommendations of the Report of the Planning Policy Officer but remain concerned over the proposed Spine Road alignment (Section 4.1 sub section 2.11) Although the northern alignment fits better in the terms of the recommendations of Manual for Streets, avoids the green wedge, does not cut off Whitmore Lane residents from Staplegrove village and is more suited as part of a future northern orbital route the site promoters still seem to be subtly promoting the southern option. They refer to the southern route as option A and show a cycle route along that option only (Framework Plan 4.2 Access Strategy). They recommend a cycle route from the proposed primary school from this alignment to Corkscrew Lane. At the July 2015 consultation event one of the display boards entitled Spine Road Phasing Diagram clearly showed a short access road from Corkscrew Lane to the southern alignment along the side of the Village World building. The northern option B did not feature at all on the display.
The land promoter only introduced the southern option A in July 2015 (the original Framework Master plan January 2015 only showed the northern route) and state in the Planning Policy Officer report 4.1 sub section 2.11 that they would "continue to include a potential southern alignment should the favoured option prove undeliverable". This suggests to me that they prefer the southern alignment as it allows for building to commence with access from Corkscrew Lane to the site until the Spine Road has been completed which could be several years away. During this time Manor Road and Corkscrew Lane would see an increase in traffic movements until such time the new route was opened.
Clearly the northern alignment option B is the only workable solution for those who will live, work and travel in Staplegrove.
A Resident.
Friday 6th November 2015
There was a brilliant turn out of "members of the public" at Tuesday night's scrutiny committee meeting at TDBC offices. Thank you to all who were able to come along at such short notice. Doors to the adjacent area were opened up to make sufficient room for everyone !
In total 8 people spoke and covered many of the issues and an additional 7 people made submissions in writing which the chairperson confirmed had been circulated to all committee members prior to the meeting. Again thank you to those people.
Given that, sadly, as we know the site is already in principle allocated for development, we had as good an outcome at this stage as we could hope for despite the fact that the committee as a whole [ 2 councillors abstained] voted to recommend approval of the North Taunton Development plan with 3 minor wording changes. These were that they " indicated a strong preference for a northern alignment" That mixture of uses in the proposed local centre was " to include small business units" and that evidence to justify any reduction in size of the green wedge should be "strong evidence to justify...."
But every cloud has a silver lining and on a positive note I think our "numbers" and representations were not in vain but succeeded in 3 ways:
i] made the councillors more aware of the proposed development and thus sparked more questions and discussion from councillors than otherwise might have happened at a meeting without members of the public present
ii] sent a loud and clear message to councillors that we will be very evident and vociferous come planning application time
iii] will send a loud and clear message [ via officers] to the site promoters that we haven't given up and will not be making their life easy as we will be pushing for the best outcome for Staplegrove come what may.
Tuesday 27th October 2015
Letter from RoSAG to Somerset County Council in response to their reply to our request for clarifications.
Dear ........... (Information Request Officer)
Thank you for replying to our request for clarifications.
RoSAG does not wish to use up any further SCC resources by seeking an internal review since you make clear, in your response, your perceived justification under EIRs 2004.
We feel that RoSAG has followed due process in trying to engage with SCC and therefore remain disappointed that the council appears to hide behind legislation rather than engage with residents and electors. It is our opinion that the County Council’s behaviour in this instance will prove to do more to damage relationships with electors than enhance it.
It is RoSAG's opinion that SCC is sending out mixed messages. Comments on behalf of Highways and Transport to the SADMP representations state “SCC has worked with Taunton Deane to understand the transport and highways impacts of the proposal set out in the SADMP and is comfortable that the impacts can be mitigated.” Further comments say “SCC has concerns regarding the availability of funding to deliver the off-site transport improvements required to completely mitigate the impacts of some of the developments set out in the plan”. So, first of all SCC seem “comfortable” then later on not so comfortable.
Later in the same document SCC state that their unsuccessful application for funding through the Growth Deal extension to make improvement at Silk Mills / Cross Keys junctions would mean that land developers’ funding or CIL payments were the preferred option.
So some decisions have been made and thus no longer needing “private time” and/or “ a safe space” for thinking on the part of officers and councillors.
SCC say they are working with TDBC. Yet, in relation to highways, TDBC, in a meeting in March 2015, with residents groups and parish councillors said “SCC are not talking to us”.
It seems to us that SCC does recognise there is a problem with the highways infrastructure in North Taunton in relation to future housing development. It also seems evident that SCC is not owning the problem as The Highways Department.
For SCC to endorse further development in North Taunton, without prior suitable infrastructure for highways in place, will be considered an abdication of responsibility.
In conclusion, we remain disappointed in SCC’s response to RoSAG’s request for information but do thank you for your time
Regards
Jackie Calcroft
Pp RoSAG
Somerset County Council Information Request Officer sent this reply by return!
Dear Ms Calcroft,
Thank you very much for your email.
I am writing to ask if you would be happy for me to pass on your feedback to our planning team who are dealign with this application? I fell your comments could be of use to the team.
Thank you
(Information Request Officer)
Saturday 24th October 2015
Letter to RoSAG from Somerset County Council in response to our follow up request (sent 17th October) for more information.
Dear Mrs Calcroft,
I am writing in response to your follow up request dated 19 October 2015.
Please find my response to each of your questions detailed below. Please note that I am unable to provide you with a response for questions four, seven and eight as these questions need to be dealt with through an internal review. I have included details of how to request an internal review at the bottom your questions.
1. Please clarify why your response took more than the 20 working days which under EIRs is a statutory requirement. Your reply was sent by e-mail on working day 23 following my repeatedly chasing up a response.
Under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act 2000) if a request is not clear then we must request further clarification. The request is not considered valid if it is unclear to us what information is being sought.
In an organisation as large and diverse as the County Council we often have to contact a wide range of sources to determine where information is held. In your case, I contacted a number of different officers to try and clarify which development and ‘spine road’ your request referred to. Unfortunately I was unable to determine this and had to request further clarification from you. When clarification is asked for, the time frame for the request is reset, meaning that the due date for your request changed to the 20 October 2015. I should have informed you of this at the time of receiving your clarification and apologise that I did not send correspondence explaining this to you.
2. You state on page 1 sentence 3 “ I can confirm..... withholding some of that information since we consider that exceptions apply to it” . If you are only withholding “some” then please clarify what information you consider you are disclosing.
I provided you with a link to the full cabinet meeting minutes, in response to question two of your request. I consider that our response to question two was information that we disclosed.
3. Please clarify your decision to include part 1 [ All discussions ..........] of my request as fully being a matter under EIRs and not FOI.
Your request was dealt with under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, as we considered that the requested information falls into the category of ‘Environmental Information’. This includes all information, including administrative measures, which will have an impact on the surrounding environment. In this case, your request related to discussions involving the building of a road. We consider that the decision that would arise from these discussions would have a direct impact on the surrounding environment.
The definition for environmental information can be found using the following link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3391/regulation/2/made
4. It seems to me improbable that there are no completed records of officers / councillors thoughts which would have been made " in private" and " in a safe space" and not yet shared with site promoters / developers over what is a long period of time. As such records would have contributed to interim public consultations by the site promoters.
Given my view above please clarify, why do you not consider "partial disclosure" of some of the information requested?
The reasons for withholding information are detailed in our previous response. If you do not feel that this exception has been applied correctly then you can request an internal review. Details of how to request an internal review are available at the end of this letter.
5. Please confirm that all information held by SCC, as requested by me originally, remains "unfinished".
Guidance notes from the information commissioner’s office states‘The fact that the exception refers to both material in the course of completion and unfinished documents implies that these terms are not necessarily synonymous. While a particular document may itself be finished, it may be part of material which is still in the course of completion.’ (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1637/eir_material_in_the_course_of_completion.pdf) Page 2
In this case, the information you have requested remains unfinished. In particular, there are significant decisions still to be made as the project is still at pre-application stage. The discussions that you have requested are part of the decision making process and it is this process that remains unfinished.
6. You write "If the meeting minutes are released at this stage it could give both the public and the developers a mis-leading and inaccurate impression of our plans". The word "could " [dictionary definition " possibility"] rather than "would" seems to imply a lack of belief that the adverse effect is more likely than not to happen. EIRs guidance is clear that
"The fact that EIR uses only “would” and not “would be likely” means that the test for engaging these exceptions is more stringent than that for prejudice-based exemptions in FOIA. A public authority cannot engage an exception if it cannot show that the adverse effect is more likely than not to happen (ie if there is a less than 50% chance").
I apologise for the use of my wording, and agree that I should have used ‘would be likely’ (as this is what was meant) rather than ‘could’.
7. RoSAG has previously been informed that SCC have, within the timescale covering our request for information, made specific recommendations / preferences to site promoters to aid the latters' public consultations. Whilst accepting that SCC considers itself as "still at the pre-application stage of this development" it does not accord with public concerns which one would hope would have been evident from our initial request. EIRs is quite clear in its guidance. "Evidence of public concern could also be a factor for disclosure. If there is evidence of public concern but those concerns do not have an objective basis, there can still be a public interest argument for disclosure if this would show that the concerns are unjustified and would help restore confidence in the public authority."
Please clarify why you did not consider this under "Factors in favour of disclosure"
The reasons for withholding information are detailed in our previous response. If you do not feel that this exception has been applied correctly then you can request an internal review. Details of how to request an internal review are available at the end of this letter.
8. It is my opinion that the " Factors in favour of withholding" are not sufficient to outweigh " Factors in favour of disclosure". Please clarify.
The reasons for withholding information are detailed in our previous response. If you do not feel that this exception has been applied correctly then you can request an internal review. Details of how to request an internal review are available at the end of this letter.
If you would like me to pass on questions four, seven and eight for internal review, by our Information Governance team, then please reply to this email.
Alternatively you can contact the Information Governance Team direct via email at [email protected] or post to Information Governance Team, Commercial and Business Services, PP B/C link 1, Somerset County Council, County Hall, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 4DY.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may then appeal directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office with your complaint.
The Information commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire,
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 0303 123 1113
Web address: www.ico.gov.uk
Yours Sincerely,
Information Request Team
email: [email protected]
Telephone: 01823 359560
Direct Dial: 01823 359359
Somerset County Council, Post Point: PP B3E 2, County Hall, Taunton, TA1 4DY
URL: www.somerset.gov.uk
FOI Disclosure Log URL: http://www.somerset.gov.uk/disclosurelog
Saturday 17th October 2015
Letter from RoSAG to Somerset County Council in response to their reply regarding our request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Dear …….. (Information Request Officer)
Thank you for your response to myself on behalf of RoSAG [ Residents of Staplegrove Action Group]. Your response will now be put in the public domain with your personal details omitted whilst we consider our further options.
I would point out that although dated October 13th your response was not sent by email until 11.40 am October 15th. You state you are closing the case as of the date of the letter which I feel is inappropriate.
In your response you state "If you feel your request has not been answered in sufficient detail or if you wish to clarify the information given, please contact me and I will be happy to address the issues you raise".
I write to take advantage of your kind offer.
1.Please clarify why your response took more than the 20 working days which under EIRs is a statutory requirement. Your reply was sent by e-mail on working day 23 following my repeatedly chasing up a response.
2. You state on page 1 sentence 3 “ I can confirm..... withholding some of that information since we consider that exceptions apply to it” . If you are only withholding “some” then please clarify what information you consider you are disclosing.
3. Please clarify your decision to include part 1 [ All discussions ..........] of my request as fully being a matter under EIRs and not FOI.
4. It seems to me improbable that there are no completed records of officers / councillors thoughts which would have been made " in private" and " in a safe space" and not yet shared with site promoters / developers over what is a long period of time. As such records would have contributed to interim public consultations by the site promoters.
Given my view above please clarify why do you not consider "partial disclosure" of some of the information requested .
5. Please confirm that all information held by SCC, as requested by me originally, remains "unfinished".
6. You write "If the meeting minutes are released at this stage it could give both the public and the developers a mis-leading and inaccurate impression of our plans" . The word " could " [dictionary definition " possibility"] rather than "would" seems to imply a lack of belief that the adverse effect is more likely than not to happen. EIRs guidance is clear that
"The fact that EIR uses only “would” and not “would be likely” means that the test for engaging these exceptions is more stringent than that for prejudice-based exemptions in FOIA.
A public authority cannot engage an exception if it cannot show that the adverse effect is more likely than not to happen (ie if there is a less than 50% chance").
7. RoSAG has previously been informed that SCC have, within the timescale covering our request for information, made specific recommendations / preferences to site promoters to aid the latters' public consultations. Whilst accepting that SCC considers itself as "still at the pre-application stage of this development" it does not accord with public concerns which one would hope would have been evident from our initial request. EIRs is quite clear in its guidance. "Evidence of public concern could also be a factor for disclosure. If there is evidence of public concern but those concerns do not have an objective basis, there can still be a public interest argument for disclosure if this would show that the concerns are unjustified and would help restore confidence in the public authority."
Please clarify why you did not consider this under "Factors in favour of disclosure"
8. It is my opinion that the " Factors in favour of withholding" are not sufficient to outweigh " Factors in favour of disclosure". Please clarify.
I am appreciative that you advise how I may follow the formal route to request an Internal Review. However, I hope you will see that by clarifying all above, both sides may avoid delay, wasting public resources and restore RoSAG's confidence in its County Council. The purpose of our seeking the information we requested, was to avoid residents wasting, in particular, councillors' time, raising concerns over the many rumours that abound about this proposed development in relation to SCC's role and to better inform local opinion.
RoSAG followed the FOIA route with TDBC and as a result was able to dispel many "myths".
I look forward to your early response.
In the event of your not replying within 5 working days [Monday October 26th] please consider this as a request for an Internal Review and I therefore ask that you pass this letter to the Information Governance Team no later than Tuesday October 27th and advise me accordingly.
Thank you
Regards
Jackie Calcroft
pp RoSAG
Thursday 15th October 2015
Letter to RoSAG from Somerset County Council in response to our request under the Freedom of Information Act
Information Requests
PP B3E 2
County Hall
Taunton
Somerset
TA1 4DY
Please ask for: ………..
FOI Reference: ……….
Direct Dial: 01823 ………. Email: info.somersetcc@............
Date: 13 October 2015
Dear Ms Calcroft
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
This request is being handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
I can confirm that Somerset County Council holds some of the information you have requested. However, we are withholding some of that information since we consider that exceptions apply to it. Our response is detailed underneath you questions as follows.
The information we seek relates to the period from April 1st 2014 to date and involves:
1. All discussions [ between officers and/or county councillors whether with any consultants and/or site promoters* or not] which have taken place relating to ecological issues and also all transport /highways matters concerning the
proposed " spine" road and it's interface onto exisiting highways to both the east and west of the proposed development. * GL Hearn, PM Asset Management, Ptarmigan, Rockpool]
The information requested is exempt from disclosure under Regulation 12(4)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs). The information consists of material which is still in the course of completion, unfinished documents including drafts or incomplete data.
To use this exception we are required to undertake a public interest test. The matters which were considered in applying the public interest test are as follows:
Factors in favour of disclosure
Accountability and Transparency for the public to know what Somerset County Council are spending public funds on.
Factors in favour of withholding
We are still at the pre-application stage of this development and there are some significant decisions that still need to be made. To release the information at this time would affect the ability of members and officers to ‘think in private’. The council
members and officers need a ‘safe space’ to debate freely and make an informeddecision. To disclose the information at this point would harm the ‘safe space’.
If the meeting minutes are released at this stage it could give both the public and the developers a misleading and inaccurate impression of our plans. This is because we are at a very early stage in the pre-application and the plans are subject to further considerations and change.
2. In addition there seem to be no records of meetings of The Cabinet or Full County Council available on the SCC website post 16/07/2014. Therefore please supply electronic copies of said meetings from August 2014 to date where the above matters were included.
This information is available through our website (www.somerset.gov.uk). A direct link to the information is as follows.
http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/council/meetings/results.asp?ccode=%25&SMonth=July&SYear=2014&EMonth=July&EYear=2014&sort=Meeting_Date+DESC&searchpage=1&Input=Search
To access the information you are looking for click on the ‘Minutes’ and ‘Agenda’ link next to the meeting titled ‘County Council’.
It is considered that the greater public interest therefore lies in not providing the information at this time. In coming to that conclusion, the public interest in providing the information has been carefully weighed against any prejudice to the public interest that might arise from withholding the information; in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
This response therefore acts as a refusal notice under regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations.
Please quote the reference number ………. in any future communications.
If you feel your request has not been answered in sufficient detail or if you wish to clarify the information given, please contact me and I will be happy to address the issues you raise.
If you are not satisfied with our response you may contact the Information Governance Team to request an internal review. An independent investigation of the handling of your request will then be carried out. The conclusions of this investigation, and a fresh decision about the information to be provided, should be sent to you within twenty working days of receipt of this request
To request an Internal Review please respond to this email detailing why you are not satisfied.
Alternatively you can contact the Information Governance Team via email at [email protected]
or post to Information Governance Team, Commercial and Business Services, PP B/C link 1 Somerset County Council, County Hall, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 4DY
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may then appeal directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office with your complaint.
The Information commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Telephone: 0303 123 1113
Web address: www.ico.gov.uk
We would like to hear your views on our service. If you'd like to tell us how we did, you can complete our feedback form online at http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/foifeedback
I will now close your request as of this date.
Yours sincerely
………………………
Information Request Officer
Tuesday 22nd September 2015
The North Taunton Development
A summary of events
This summary is prepared from information sent to RoSAG [FOI request to TDBC for the period April 1 2102 – July 3 2015] and a subsequent meeting with TDBC planning policy officer.
HISTORY
THE LAST 3 YEARS 2012 -2015
It seems that the issue of the spine road remains a “sticking point “
RoSAG is currently awaiting information from Somerset County Council which has been requested under the FOI . This information relates to meetings and discussions with the County’s Highways officers and the Ecology Officer. Such information should be received by October 12th 2015.
Thursday 20th August 2015
Letter to TDBC from RoSAG in response to our request under the Freedom of Information Act.
August 20th 2015
To the Freedom of Information Act Officer, TDBC
Cc Cllr John Williams, CJ Fomes [WARG], Cllr Hapgood, Rebecca Pow MP, Staplegrove Parish Council, Kingston St Mary Parich Council, Freedom of Information Commissioner, Somerset County Gazette, RoSAG
Dear Madam/ Sir
Thank you for your response to our request placed on July 22nd requesting copies of specific minutes of meetings under the Freedom of Information Act .
Given the small amount of information received covering a period of 3+ years regarding such an important issue, I am disappointed that our request was not dealt with more promptly. Your response was not received until 17.32pm on the deadline date of August 19th. In this respect I draw your attention to the Information Commissioner’s Office [ICO] guidance:
24.“ Authorities should regard the 20 working day limit as a ‘long stop’, in other words the latest possible date on which they may issue a response.”
25 .” It also follows that an authority which provides it’s response close to, or on, the final day of the 20 working day limit ought to be able to both account for and justify the length of time taken to comply with the request.”
RoSAG is of the opinion that only part of the information appears to have been received.
This opinion is based upon:
We have received 7 documents
a] letter from a third party to TDBC dated 28 Jan 2013
b]notes of TDBC officers’ meeting dated 15 May 2013
c]notes of TDBC officers’ meeting dated 6 Nov 2014
d]e-mail from third party dated 15 Jan 2015
e]notes of meeting from third party dated Feb 2015
f] TDBC officer amendment to the above third party notes [ Feb 2015]
g] TDBC officers’ notes dated 11th June 2015
We acknowledge and appreciate your drawing our attention to copyright restrictions regarding the information sent and will follow this up. I would remind you that our initial request was made on behalf of our residents group of 160+ members and not on behalf of myself as an individual. Unless I hear to the contrary within 7 working days I will take it as confirmed by yourselves that I may post the documents initiated by TDBC on our website [ where we update our members]. In respect of information supplied by a third party to TDBC I will ascertain with the respective organisation/ group that I may share the information with RoSAG via our website prior to so doing.
I would therefore urge that our request for a review is considered as a matter of some urgency in order for Residents of Staplegrove Action Group [ RoSAG] to uphold confidence in elected members and the council.
Full details of our exact request including referring to specific documents received will be with you no later than Monday August 24th 2015
In the meantime we look forward your reply and comments on all of the above
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Jackie Calcroft
Pp RoSAG
Thursday 23rd July 2015
Letter to RoSAG from TDBC informing the submission of TDBC Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (SADMP) to the Secretary of State.
Our Ref: ALR/S02/SADMP Draft Plan Submission
22th July 2015
Dear Mrs Calcroft
Submission of Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (SADMP)
At the beginning of the year you made representations on behalf of residents of Staplegrove Action Group on the Taunton Deane Borough Council’s Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan. This document was submitted to the Secretary of State on 13th July 2015.
In accordance with Section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; following on from the recent publication deposit of the Draft Site Allocation and Development Management Plan; all the representations received, as well as the Site Allocation and Development Plan itself, and associated documents have been submitted to the Secretary of State.
The Planning Inspectorate will appoint an Independent Planning Inspector, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to look at all the documentation and information submitted and oversee the Examination of the Plan.
Everyone who submitted representations in response to the recent publication of the Plan will receive a letter or email from the Programme Officer confirming the date, time and place of the Examination hearings and the name of the appointed Inspector. The Programme Officer manages the running of the Examination and supports the Independent Inspector during the process.
The Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (SADMP) sets out policies for the allocation of land for housing, employment and other development proposals across Taunton Deane excluding the allocations in the Taunton town centre, for the period up to 2028. It also contains detailed development management policies against which planning applications will be considered. Policies in the SADMP must be justified, effective, positively prepared, and consistent with strategic policies in the adopted Core Strategy and national planning policy.
All matters associated with the Examination, including summaries of representations and supporting documents will be available on the Council’s website www.tauntondeane.gov.uk/siteallocations and at Planning Reception at Deane House, Belvedere Road, Taunton, TA1 1HE.
If you have any queries, please contact the Council’s Planning Policy Team on: [email protected].
If you no longer wish to be on our consultation database please let us know by email.
Yours Faithfully
Planning Policy
Wednesday 22nd July 2015
RoSAG has sent this letter to Cllr Williams leader of TDBC. Copies have been sent to Cllr Roger Habgood and Rebecca Pow M.P.
July 22nd 2015
Dear Cllr Williams,
I write on behalf of the 160+ residents in our group to yet again re-iterate that we believe that the proposed development for North Taunton is inappropriate, premature, ill-conceived and unworkable.
In the original Core Strategy, this site was put forward for possible development of between 500 and 1500 houses IF needed at the end of Taunton Deane’s house building project [ approx 2023 -2028].
It is our assumption that development on this site may have been escalated because the landowners have come forward early creating an unexpected opportunity for the Borough. This may well be an incorrect assumption and there was probably formal, serious debate and voting by the council to justify both the appropriateness and escalation of this project. As we have been unable to find such records on your comprehensive website I am writing with a request under the freedom of information act to ask that you furnish us with the relevant details as to the decision making to bring this site forward so prematurely and justify its now proposed size.
· We would like copies of the minutes of all meetings held between Ptarmigan, PMAM, and / or Hearn’s with TDBC [ some meetings may include others] from April 1st 2012 to July 3rd 2015.
· In addition we request copies of the minutes of meetings held between TDBC councillors from 1st April 2012 to July 3rd 2015 when the proposed Staplegrove development was discussed.
This proposed development would see the loss of an abundance of wildlife habitats and a vast area of prime agricultural land, which once built upon, could never be re-instated. A growing population means more food will be needed. Development in this area will add to the depletion of locally produced food and add to the need to import goods from other countries [often of inferior quality due to farming methods and miles travelled]. Recent research has shown that red meat produced in our own country is far more nutritious and less harmful to health due to the way cattle are reared and the quality of pasture. No doubt thanks to local, high grade agricultural land this is even more the case here in Taunton itself!
To proceed with this development would create a possible 5 separate sets of traffic lights on a length of the A358 by the Silk Mills roundabout which is less than 500 metres in length! This will certainly not help ease current traffic congestion which frustrated, Taunton road users, face daily!
There remain many unfinished initiatives within Taunton Deane and without their completion and evaluation upon existing infrastructure and the availability of empty brown field sites it seems to us to be imprudent to initiate others. Reviews of the Core Strategy Review and the SADMP have not yet taken place. We would urge that it is vital that these are carried out and fully evaluated with public consultation before any further decisions are taken by the Council.
To proceed with the North Taunton Development without a massive re-think of Taunton’s infrastructure, and in particular highways and the proposed new employment site at J 25 [ the opposite side of town!] along with the loss of prime agricultural land will not inspire electors’ confidence in the decision makers who represent them.
I look forward to receiving the requested information and your comments on this most concerning issue.
Many thanks
Yours sincerely
Jackie Calcroft
pp RoSAG
Tuesday 15th July 2015
Letter and Feedback Information to North Taunton Consultation, Origin3 Ltd.
Consultation Feedback North Taunton Development
RoSAG currently represents over 160 people. This response sums up the overall views of RoSAG following a meeting held on July 9th 2015. We address question by question as per your feedback form.
Thankyou for your consideration of our response
Jackie Calcroft
pp RoSAG
Question 1
If the question is aimed at the proposed development being brought forward from it’s original timescale and smaller size within Taunton Deane’s Core Strategy then we have to say that we feel 100% unable to support the proposals. They are inappropriate, premature, ill-conceived and unworkable.
We take this stance because given the proposed size of the development we are of firm belief that the current surrounding infrastructure or employment opportunities will not be sufficiently improved to support the proposal and this will be detrimental to Taunton itself. We are also of the opinion that the use of prime agricultural land is iniquitous.
Question 2
We answer this in line with the way the question is posed i.e in relation to Taunton per se and not specifically North Taunton
There is a need for truly affordable housing in Taunton . Our interpretation of truly affordable means that it must be affordable to local people and local wages. Pegging affordable house costs in line with national levels does not make it affordable. Taunton also needs a good range of high quality houses of all sizes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the questions are answered in relation to IF this proposal has to go ahead. We make our suggestions and comments with the intention of hopefully shaping the final outcome for the benefit of existing local residents as well as “new” ones.
Question 3
The spine road is and always has been the big issue in relation to this proposed development. Until this consultation, the northern route for the spine road [ route B] has always been the sole option. Now at the 11th hour a southern route [ Route A] is the preferred option by PMAM and Ptarmigan .
Both routes will be visible from differing parts of the Quantocks due to land contours. Both routes will destroy wildlife habitats as will all new build on green field sites, especially prime, agricultural land!
Question 4
The site promoters’ proposals seem fairly inclusive. We are aware however, that employment, educational, leisure and medical facilities rely upon third party investment.
Question 5
The site promoters’ proposals seem fairly inclusive. However, we do have concerns about the lack of green space to the West of the proposed development compared to the East and ask that this percentage balance is re-considered as a matter of some urgency. Long term management of all green spaces is a serious concern.
Question 6
The upgrade must be sufficient, as stated, to accommodate all new build, A minimum suitable distance for burying lines underground to minimise potential health risks MUST be a priority.
Question 7
We are concerned that the water management issues of this site have not been given sufficient consideration. The site promoters do not seem to have been made fully aware of local flooding patterns. We consider future flooding an increased risk to the village especially as there is little green space behind the village itself. Attenuation ponds overall do not appear to be suitably sited or sufficient in quantity.
Further comments
Overall , in addition to the many serious concerns raised above, we have issues regarding access from Manor Road and Corkscrew Lane at the side of Village World before the completion of a spine road.
A detailed construction traffic management plan must ensure that vehicles are kept away from Manor Road and Corkscrew Lane.
Tuesday 7th July 2015
North Taunton Development have published the Consultation Event Boards which are available to download here
These and the feedback form can also be downloaded using the links in "Further Information" on this site
Friday 26th June 2015
National Trust response (June 2014) regarding land at Pyrland.
From: "Murray, Simon" <[email protected]>
Date: 27 June 2014 16:06:20 BST
To: Subject: Development at Pyrland
Dear
Thank you for your email regarding the development around Taunton and from the Trust's perspective our land at Pyrland. Taunton Deane are currently consulting on a number of possible future development areas around Taunton. The Staplegrove area includes some of the land we own at what we call Pyrland.
The National Trust remains committed to the preservation of countryside and our policy advocates the use of brown field land for development before using green field land. The national planning policy has made it easier for development of houses on green field land, whilst we acknowledge the need to provide homes for the growing population we must ensure we utilise the most appropriate land areas for these developments.
With regard to Pyrland this was gifted to the trust by John Adams along with Fyne Court at Broomfield, about 5 miles north of Taunton, and we accepted it on behalf of the nation in the 1960's, with the clear instruction in the Will that Pyrland was to be utilised as investment property to provide the endowment for Fyne Court. Fyne Court is a small yet important property visited by around 35,000 people a year, many from Taunton. The endowment ensures that we can manage Fyne Court in perpetuity and has enough money in its own right. Since we acquired it Pyrland has been managed in a low key manner through a tenant farmer with the knowledge that one day all or part of it could be disposed of.
Taunton Deane Borough Council approached us about the possibility of acquiring land back in 2005 as they were looking for land for affordable houses. With nothing decided or agreed with Taunton Deane we carried out a local awareness campaign where we held a number of public evenings at Ladymead School to make local people aware of why the Trust had Pyrland and what could happen at some point in the future. At that time we engaged with a number of people along Hope Corner and Corkscrew Lanes to discuss this in more detail. The initial approach by Taunton Deane has just come to fruition with the building works now underway as you know on land off the Cheddon Road where the first 30 affordable homes are being built for local people. It's taken a long time but we have been able to help local people with their first homes and also begin to build up the endowment at Fyne Court. The initiative has been largely received well by the community.
We feel that this latest option gives us the opportunity to not only make use of the land to meet the bequest of John Adams but also play a full and active part in helping to shape the north edge of Taunton around Staplegrove by providing land for much needed houses, new schools and transport links. In doing so, we can help to influence building design, improvements to the landscape, especially the historic landscape of Pyrland Hall, ensure green space is well designed and sustainable, and increase access. In terms of our funds and needs we are an independent charity entirely dependent on the generosity of our members and supporters. Each year we carry out over £100m of conservation work and this need will only increase in coming years so we do need to consider our income seriously. We want to and do work with people, listen and take on board views from local people who can also help to influence future developments. We have experience of this at other development sites around the country and we know we can influence for the better. We work within the local planning framework and democratic process and are not development led. We're not opposed to development because we know we need it, but we want to ensure its development in the right place and with the right safeguards. Less than 1% of all the land we own is classed as investment land and as a charity we have a responsibility, enforced by the Charity Commission, to ensure we use it for the betterment of our charitable purposes.
We appreciate new developments can be a controversial issue but I hope that I have reassured you somewhat that our approach is rigorous and you are able to continue supporting our work.
Yours sincerely
Simon Murray
Rosag attended the TDBC full council meeting on Tuesday 15th to hear the debate on the North Taunton Development Framework Plan.
In attendance were James Turner from PM Asset Management [ PMAM -site promoters for the east of the site] and a WARG member who along with RoSAG had registered to speak.
One of our two ward councillors and our county councillor were in the chamber. Neither spoke on the relevant agenda item.
RoSAG's question related to SCC refusing [under the Freedom of information act [FOI] ] to answer our requests regarding highways issues. We therefore asked if TDBC whom we felt sure would have had such discussions with the County could share this information with us - in particular the width of the spine road and the connections to both Staplegrove and Kingston roads.
WARG focused on seeking confirmation that the council was still confident that employment figures, an indicator originally of the need to build new houses, were as originally identified. Their focus was also on the size of the green wedge being within acceptable guidelines, concern that Raghill should not have houses built on it and the need for a completed spine road.
Cllr Roger Habgood has the portfolio for planning policy and transportation and was charged with answering our questions. Back in May , soon after the elections he contacted RoSAG requesting a meeting with us. We suggested our diary was more flexible than his and suggested he forwarded us dates and times. We have followed this up on numerous occasions but still await a reply!
Cllr Habgood's reply to RoSAG was " we [TDBC] work hard with county ------" He would take our question back to SCC and " ask if anything could be put in the public domain". [In the first week of January unless we have had a reply we have it in the diary to write to him for an update!]
In his reply to WARG he confirmed that he had confidence in the employment figures as identified in the Core Strategy as an indicator of the number of houses needed in the area!
When the item came to accept the recommendation to adopt the Framework [ as per amendments previously detailed], it was approved.
The Framework Plan continues to look at the houses in isolation to the wider infrastructure, in particular, highways. This was a point picked up on by Cllr Morrell as a concern across Taunton.
A planning application is expected to be submitted in January. Watch this space!
Friday 4th December 2015
RoSAG attended both SADMP Initial Hearings on the 1st & 2nd December. Staplegrove (TAU2) was discussed on the first day with Comeytrowe/Trull (TAU1) on the second day.
For Staplegrove on the 1st there were representatives from Historic England, TDBC, Origin3, Natural England, Somerset County Council, Staplegrove Parish Council plus many members of the public.
The Inspector Mr. Paul Griffiths set the agenda by explaining that the initial hearing was to discuss habitat and historic environment issues only.
It was then explained as to how the calculation for a sustainable habitat was arrived at. This included a time period for the new environment to mature so as to allow migration from areas that were about to be developed. It was explained that building phasing would assist this process. Also considered was the effect of the spine road and lighting with regard to the environment. It was noted that most of the habitat issues were in the east of the proposed development.
With regard to the historic environment these centered around Pyrland Hall, Oakhills, Yarde Farm House and Staplegrove conservation area. The main concern seemed to be the setting in which the buildings or areas are currently in and whether the policies in the SADMP go far enough to protect them. There was much discussion from all parties with regard to the listed buildings mentioned with the Inspector taking on board comments which he said would help him make an informed decision. It was also suggested that TDBC might like to consider a "Heritage Conservation Strategy" to assist when dealing with heritage assets.
Since the Inspector had made it known that any other matters other than those on the agenda would not be discussed RoSAG asked if there would be further hearings where matters such as highway infrastructure, health and education could be debated. The feeling was that assuming he was happy with the policies relating to habitat and historic environment he would then move on and arrange hearings to discuss the wider issues. This would only happen if he felt there was concern, which, given the feeling at both days hearings, we feel that he was aware of such a concern.
Day 2 covered Comeytrowe and followed a similar pattern, although, because of the recent deferment of the planning application, Infrastructure was discussed. Again Mr. Griffiths explained that he was only able to consider Infrastructure in relation to habitat or the historical environment and this was made more difficult since a planning application had already been made.
The hearing finished with a summary from Mr. Griffiths who said he would visit the areas of concern and make an initial report covering what had been discussed. It looks like, however, that any future hearings will not be until after the next planning meeting (January 27th 2016) as they need a 6 week lead time in order for people to prepare.
Further bedtime reading can be found on the TDBC website. Follow the link below.
Site Allocations and Development Management Plan
Thursday 12th November 2015
TDBC Executive Committee Meeting held on Wed 11th November to discuss the North Taunton Framework Plan
These were the main discussion points amongst the 8 councillors on the Executive :
- There are over 3,000 people on the housing waiting list. Not building houses forces prices up and also stops affordable housing.
- The Council has to have a 5 year land supply
- The “principle of development” is set as the site is part of the SADMP
- More and more people work at home [ This was quoted as a positive re not commuting / using roads and life / work balance]
- The use of Manor Road / Corkscrew Lane as a “ temporary” access for houses must not be allowed
- The Northern alignment is seen as the only suitable option
- Roads / congestion in Taunton are a serious concern and pressure needs to be put on SCC, the Highways Authority.
- The Green Wedge should not be reduced.
- Regrettably villages on the outskirts of towns will in the future be extended outwards
- There is a need to very diligent to the “ detail” of any planning. “Big developers” can be prone to renege on original plans and have the necessary legal back-up. Caution needs to be applied to ensure careful detailing when planning application is sought.
- With regard to employment -although 77% of employees in Taunton stay in Taunton, this is down from 84%
- TDBC councillors are aware of highways infrastructure problems but this rests with SCC
- It can take 20 minutes to get down Manor Road
- 4 sets of traffic lights on Staplegrove Road will add to congestion
- Hope Corner Lane not a good junction
- Flooding has not been sufficiently addressed
Members of RoSAG both spoke and sent in statements to the council regarding the proposals. A few of these are outlined below.
I draw your attention to the following bullet points which are elaborated upon in full in the text below and seek your full consideration.
- 1.An eleventh hour shift to the alignment of the proposed spine road and starting point for house building which, without justification, can only be interpreted as being based upon increased profits for developers rather than a commitment to responding to the outcomes of public consultations.
- 2.Increased pollution from standing traffic.
- 3.Benefits of a northern alignment for the spine road v the southern alignment.
- 4.What criteria will The Council accept as the alignment of the spine road being “Undeliverable”?
- 5.Honouring statements from the leader of the Council and our MP.
- 6.Reviewing the historic data used to determine the need for the size of this development in line with current information,
- 7.Honouring amendments made by the Scrutiny Committee to the officers’ report.
1.Suddenly, this Summer at the final public consultation after 2 -3 years the site promoters introduced a second and preferred, southerly option! Simultaneously there was a sudden shift to start development in the middle of the site rather than the original proposal of east and west sides with entrances to and from the site via Kingston and Staplegrove Roads.
The middle of the site is the most attractive plot to development companies as it has always been “promised” for the larger and more prestigious housing but this means developers now need a more convenient initial route in and out of the site. This route, is not written into any documents but was shown on a board at July’s final public consultation as dropping down onto Corkscrew Lane / Manor Road. This is a bendy and narrow road with existing traffic calming. SCC and TDBC have repeatedly said this road can’t take any more traffic.
And although site promoters say this would be a temporary measure until the spine road is completed the intention to complete the spine road is when the 500th house is built – Several years is not temporary.
The introduction of this southern, and preferred option so late on and without any justification can therefore can only be interpreted as being more financially attractive since the desired start point for build is now in the middle of the site.
Following the completion of house no 500, to permanently close what in effect will be a properly constructed, new road with proper signage seems highly improbable and would very likely be fiercely contested by those residents then being forced to use a labyrinth of estate roads to access the official spine road!
2.Manor Road/ Corkscrew Lane cannot take another possible 1000 cars plus the associated vehicles servicing these properties – deliveries, utility providers, small business contractors etc. Official traffic counts already show this road as carrying as many as up to 700 vehicles in a single hour! More standing traffic due to overcapacity will exacerbate pollution levels for existing residents.
3.The officers’ report clearly outlines the many advantages of the northern alignment as a suitable design for traffic including buses and cyclists.
In addition it would mean less noise pollution for Staplegrove Village as there would be more new housing to absorb some of the noise. In addition the green wedge would not be cut in half and isolate existing residents in Whitmore Lane from Staplegrove Village which is their recognised local neighbourhood.
4.The very same report advises adoption of the northern route unless it proves undeliverable. Nowhere is this term “undeliverable” defined. RoSAG would urge councillors when making their recommendations to not leave the term undeliverable as an open ended statement . Councillors should determine criteria for what is deemed acceptable as the northern alignment being “ undeliverable “. The northern alignment must be the sole option agreed prior to an application for planning permission being submitted..
5. On the Conservative Home website, 9/06/15. Cllr Williams said
“Following our election campaign we are conscious that our infrastructure must keep pace with our housing growth. This was the message on the doorstep we received, loud and clear.”
And in her election leaflet April 2015 Rebecca Pow said
“I have been working with the Council and developers to ensure that things such as transport links and school places are delivered in a timely manner”.
6.The need for Taunton’s huge future housing numbers, as well as being based on future growth in population was also partly based on local employment increasing. The major employers in Taunton are public services which, regrettably, are suffering cutbacks. Over the period 2009-2013 Somerset’s own statistics show that local employment has fallen by 4.9% . Despite optimistic projections employment prospects in our area do not seem to improve. We see many younger people leaving the area to work elsewhere and / or leaving colleges and universities and not returning to Taunton.
Jobs have to exist in an area before people move in. Building houses in the hope of attracting people to Taunton but without the prospect of employment is an ill-conceived approach.
The Norton Fitzwarren and Monkton Heathfield developments still remain unfinished due to slow sales.
RoSAG would suggest to you that the number of houses required in North Taunton be re-evaluated and adequate infrastructure put in place before any more development takes place in Taunton.
7.RoSAG would also request that the wording in the officers’ report, as voted for by the vast majority of members of the Scrutiny committee on Nov 3rd [ all voted in favour with 2 abstentions] is added to Section 11 2] i]
This wording does not appear in the version of the officers’ report presented to yourselves for this evening’s meeting . Yet other changes [ some not discussed and voted for] do appear!
Section 11 2]i] states
“Proposals should demonstrate how the proposed spine road accords with Policy TAU2 by providing for a future eastward extension to complete an orbital route around North Taunton, and the detailed alignment and design of the spine road should be agreed by the Borough Council.”
The Scrutiny Committee voted in favour for the italicised wording to be added to the end of that paragraph “--------should be agreed by the Borough Council who have already indicated a strong preference for a northern alignment.”
Thank you
Jackie
Pp RoSAG [ Residents of Staplegrove Action Group]
....................................................................................................................................................................................
No mention is made of existing and future traffic problems in Hope Corner Lane. If the proposed new link roads for Staplegrove and Nerrols go ahead without an extension to complete an Orbital Road around North Taunton, traffic will use Hope Corner Lane/Cheddon Road as one. The middle part of Hope Corner Lane is single track and is a traffic 'bottleneck' in either direction!
(Appendix A - Amendment B September 2015, see Key Diagram 2: Taunton (Proposed New Roads) - Page 7 of FMP and Development Brief refers)
Surely, the Orbital Road must be completed ahead of any development at Staplegrove - without it the traffic problems in Hope Corner Lane will become intolerable! (An orbital road has been talked about for the past 45 years and nothing has happened yet!)
Staplegrove is wrongly placed for any new housing development. The building of 1500 houses will greatly increase the population of North Taunton. Lack of funding dictates that there is little prospect of any improvement in already inadequate bus services. This will only add to existing traffic problems in Staplegrove and the surrounding area.
A Resident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I consider that the proposed North Taunton Development at Staplegrove is wholly inappropriate for the following reasons:-
1. The existing road system cannot cope with current traffic, let alone any increase. The spine road will merely add extra traffic to existing hotspots, rather than divert it away, until a northern orbital road is completed. As such, this proposed development is on the wrong side of town for access to the motorway, which is where people will need to get to for employment.
2. Taking a more overall view, the population of Taunton town is around 30,000 dwellings. The proposed developments of Staplegrove, Priorswood, Monkton Heathfield and Comeytrowe total around 9000 dwellings. That’s a 30% increase. How would the infrastructure cope?
3. The Requirement for 17,000 houses within Taunton Deane as defined in the core strategy is based on an evidence base (Future Housing Requirements - Fordham Research) which in turn is based on a certain increase in local employment. I note that employment in Taunton Deane is falling (-4.9% from 2009 to 2013. Source - SCC Somerset Intelligence). Surely this requires re-evaluation. Out-of-date consultant’s recommendations should not be a basis for action.
4. Finally, of all the large scale developments planned around Taunton, this is the one closest to an AONB, and furthest from major transport links.
A Resident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I live at ............, Staplegrove. Taunton. I have lived here for over 25 yrs, currently surrounded on 3 sides by open fields.
The proposed North Development plan will see the destruction of acres of unique wildlife habitat and open space which is enjoyed by residents of Taunton Deane & beyond.
I am not opposed to all housing development in the area, I am however very concerned by the sheer scale of these proposals and the impact on my community.
Staplegrove has approximately 900 homes and has over the years seen a huge growth of developments, Bindon Road, Showell Park, Cross Keys etc. The whole of North Taunton appears to be one building site at the moment. Norton Fitzwarren, Monkton Healthfield, The old Market.
These proposals indicate up to 1500 new homes. This is by its sheer size defined as a Town... Swamping Staplegrove and destroying our community. While leaving roads gridlocked for all road travellers.
The original proposals originally stated approximately a maximum 650 homes. The increase in numbers has not been explained. At a time when employment is going down, will we just become a commuter town for people to Travel to Exeter or Bristol or gridlocked Taunton Roads.
The infrastructure required to support a small town is not in place, nor is there any proposed highways network to take the additional 2-3000 vehicles. This is the responsibility of Somerset County Council and they do not appear to have the funds necessary.
There are a number of issues
1. The size & scale of the proposals are completely out of keeping with the local area. 1500 will swamp us destroying the whole area for miles around... It will be a blot on the landscape and will be seen for miles & in particular from the Quantocks as a huge scar across our countryside.
2. There has been very little opportunity to discuss our concerns with the developers. I received a flier for the public meeting on 4th July with an email address asking for comments. I tried for several weeks to send in my comments... The email address was not usable & my comments kept bouncing back... Many residents had the same problem... Was this deliberate? When it was working it was past the date for them to accept our comments.
3. The proposed Spine Road will become a rat run for those trying to avoid the bottlenecks. It's proposed location runs right past my home creating considerable noise & light pollution. Let alone the disruption of dirt & noise during the building stage. The bottlenecks that it create will cause frustration by all road users & make Taunton even less attractive to potential home owners.
4. At a time when Taunton Deane has a number of housing developments underway & also has 1000 empty properties why is the is Plan being pushed through at this time. It is surely better for us to consolidate what we have, review the impact on roads, schools & the environment rather than pushing ahead with this plan?
5. There is the offer of other land, well documented in the local paper, why not wait to see what proposals come from that area, already adjacent to the A358?
6. There appears to be undue haste in pushing ahead with this plan that was conceived several years ago with info that is out of date. We have since the plans conception seen a huge economic downturn.
7. Why so many homes in this one area,may town swamping a community?
8. Are you completely satisfied that this is the right plan at the right place, at the right time?
9. I ask you to look deep within your hearts & defer this proposal allowing more work to be undertaken & smaller plans to be put forward. Once we loose this land in this beautiful location it will be gone for ever. On a day when we commemorate all those who gave their lives for our freedom. Did they really think this council would destroy the most beautiful of Taunton Deane.
A Resident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with the speakers from the public, who spoke to the Scrutiny Committee about;
The huge size of the development; the lack of holistic planning of infrastructure, particularly of roads in Staplegrove and Taunton; the lack of employment; the probable movement of people to the M5 to access work elsewhere.
1) I would like to endorse changes made by the Scrutiny Committee, especially with regard to the alignment of the spine road to the North. This would help to improve its impact on the much narrower area of development to the west, in (old) Staplegrove.
2) The idea of 'distinctive' neighbourhoods for this 'new town' is important, especially in the west, where the housing could be very dense because of its narrower shape here. Sensitivity to not allowing new housing dominate and overwhelm the existing settlement of 'old' Staplegrove is essential. There are many bungalows next to the boundary.
3) It is essential that the green wedge is retained to the maximum extent but little has been suggested to maintain open green areas in the west, where the narrowness of the development intensifies the impact of building. Lots of screening will be needed at the least. The field leading to/from The Grove should not be spoilt by building.
I would like to put forward my real concerns about the following;
a) the likely increase in flooding into areas which have not yet experienced this. The slopes from the Rag Hill area will cause an excess of runoff when the surfaces are made impermeable by buildings and roads.
b) pollution of all kinds, particularly air, noise and light, will increase to spoil the lives of all residents and blight people's health. Planners ought to consider such costs, as costs to the Health service in the area.
c) to try to offset some of the bad effects of this new town on our doorsteps, it is only correct that public footpaths, especially that of the West Deane Way, are properly conserved and greened to allow a small concession to people's health, happiness and well being.
I believe that this planned development is being brought forward too hastily. There are so many piecemeal developments, most unfinished, that are turning Taunton into a nightmare of a place to live. Surely it is the duty of our representatives to think and look again at the whole plan for Taunton. It needs to be a worthy and attractive County town, not a building site to be escaped or avoided.
A Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda item 5. Approval of the North Taunton Framework Plan
In principle I agree and support most of the recommendations of the Report of the Planning Policy Officer but remain concerned over the proposed Spine Road alignment (Section 4.1 sub section 2.11) Although the northern alignment fits better in the terms of the recommendations of Manual for Streets, avoids the green wedge, does not cut off Whitmore Lane residents from Staplegrove village and is more suited as part of a future northern orbital route the site promoters still seem to be subtly promoting the southern option. They refer to the southern route as option A and show a cycle route along that option only (Framework Plan 4.2 Access Strategy). They recommend a cycle route from the proposed primary school from this alignment to Corkscrew Lane. At the July 2015 consultation event one of the display boards entitled Spine Road Phasing Diagram clearly showed a short access road from Corkscrew Lane to the southern alignment along the side of the Village World building. The northern option B did not feature at all on the display.
The land promoter only introduced the southern option A in July 2015 (the original Framework Master plan January 2015 only showed the northern route) and state in the Planning Policy Officer report 4.1 sub section 2.11 that they would "continue to include a potential southern alignment should the favoured option prove undeliverable". This suggests to me that they prefer the southern alignment as it allows for building to commence with access from Corkscrew Lane to the site until the Spine Road has been completed which could be several years away. During this time Manor Road and Corkscrew Lane would see an increase in traffic movements until such time the new route was opened.
Clearly the northern alignment option B is the only workable solution for those who will live, work and travel in Staplegrove.
A Resident.
Friday 6th November 2015
There was a brilliant turn out of "members of the public" at Tuesday night's scrutiny committee meeting at TDBC offices. Thank you to all who were able to come along at such short notice. Doors to the adjacent area were opened up to make sufficient room for everyone !
In total 8 people spoke and covered many of the issues and an additional 7 people made submissions in writing which the chairperson confirmed had been circulated to all committee members prior to the meeting. Again thank you to those people.
Given that, sadly, as we know the site is already in principle allocated for development, we had as good an outcome at this stage as we could hope for despite the fact that the committee as a whole [ 2 councillors abstained] voted to recommend approval of the North Taunton Development plan with 3 minor wording changes. These were that they " indicated a strong preference for a northern alignment" That mixture of uses in the proposed local centre was " to include small business units" and that evidence to justify any reduction in size of the green wedge should be "strong evidence to justify...."
But every cloud has a silver lining and on a positive note I think our "numbers" and representations were not in vain but succeeded in 3 ways:
i] made the councillors more aware of the proposed development and thus sparked more questions and discussion from councillors than otherwise might have happened at a meeting without members of the public present
ii] sent a loud and clear message to councillors that we will be very evident and vociferous come planning application time
iii] will send a loud and clear message [ via officers] to the site promoters that we haven't given up and will not be making their life easy as we will be pushing for the best outcome for Staplegrove come what may.
Tuesday 27th October 2015
Letter from RoSAG to Somerset County Council in response to their reply to our request for clarifications.
Dear ........... (Information Request Officer)
Thank you for replying to our request for clarifications.
RoSAG does not wish to use up any further SCC resources by seeking an internal review since you make clear, in your response, your perceived justification under EIRs 2004.
We feel that RoSAG has followed due process in trying to engage with SCC and therefore remain disappointed that the council appears to hide behind legislation rather than engage with residents and electors. It is our opinion that the County Council’s behaviour in this instance will prove to do more to damage relationships with electors than enhance it.
It is RoSAG's opinion that SCC is sending out mixed messages. Comments on behalf of Highways and Transport to the SADMP representations state “SCC has worked with Taunton Deane to understand the transport and highways impacts of the proposal set out in the SADMP and is comfortable that the impacts can be mitigated.” Further comments say “SCC has concerns regarding the availability of funding to deliver the off-site transport improvements required to completely mitigate the impacts of some of the developments set out in the plan”. So, first of all SCC seem “comfortable” then later on not so comfortable.
Later in the same document SCC state that their unsuccessful application for funding through the Growth Deal extension to make improvement at Silk Mills / Cross Keys junctions would mean that land developers’ funding or CIL payments were the preferred option.
So some decisions have been made and thus no longer needing “private time” and/or “ a safe space” for thinking on the part of officers and councillors.
SCC say they are working with TDBC. Yet, in relation to highways, TDBC, in a meeting in March 2015, with residents groups and parish councillors said “SCC are not talking to us”.
It seems to us that SCC does recognise there is a problem with the highways infrastructure in North Taunton in relation to future housing development. It also seems evident that SCC is not owning the problem as The Highways Department.
For SCC to endorse further development in North Taunton, without prior suitable infrastructure for highways in place, will be considered an abdication of responsibility.
In conclusion, we remain disappointed in SCC’s response to RoSAG’s request for information but do thank you for your time
Regards
Jackie Calcroft
Pp RoSAG
Somerset County Council Information Request Officer sent this reply by return!
Dear Ms Calcroft,
Thank you very much for your email.
I am writing to ask if you would be happy for me to pass on your feedback to our planning team who are dealign with this application? I fell your comments could be of use to the team.
Thank you
(Information Request Officer)
Saturday 24th October 2015
Letter to RoSAG from Somerset County Council in response to our follow up request (sent 17th October) for more information.
Dear Mrs Calcroft,
I am writing in response to your follow up request dated 19 October 2015.
Please find my response to each of your questions detailed below. Please note that I am unable to provide you with a response for questions four, seven and eight as these questions need to be dealt with through an internal review. I have included details of how to request an internal review at the bottom your questions.
1. Please clarify why your response took more than the 20 working days which under EIRs is a statutory requirement. Your reply was sent by e-mail on working day 23 following my repeatedly chasing up a response.
Under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act 2000) if a request is not clear then we must request further clarification. The request is not considered valid if it is unclear to us what information is being sought.
In an organisation as large and diverse as the County Council we often have to contact a wide range of sources to determine where information is held. In your case, I contacted a number of different officers to try and clarify which development and ‘spine road’ your request referred to. Unfortunately I was unable to determine this and had to request further clarification from you. When clarification is asked for, the time frame for the request is reset, meaning that the due date for your request changed to the 20 October 2015. I should have informed you of this at the time of receiving your clarification and apologise that I did not send correspondence explaining this to you.
2. You state on page 1 sentence 3 “ I can confirm..... withholding some of that information since we consider that exceptions apply to it” . If you are only withholding “some” then please clarify what information you consider you are disclosing.
I provided you with a link to the full cabinet meeting minutes, in response to question two of your request. I consider that our response to question two was information that we disclosed.
3. Please clarify your decision to include part 1 [ All discussions ..........] of my request as fully being a matter under EIRs and not FOI.
Your request was dealt with under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, as we considered that the requested information falls into the category of ‘Environmental Information’. This includes all information, including administrative measures, which will have an impact on the surrounding environment. In this case, your request related to discussions involving the building of a road. We consider that the decision that would arise from these discussions would have a direct impact on the surrounding environment.
The definition for environmental information can be found using the following link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3391/regulation/2/made
4. It seems to me improbable that there are no completed records of officers / councillors thoughts which would have been made " in private" and " in a safe space" and not yet shared with site promoters / developers over what is a long period of time. As such records would have contributed to interim public consultations by the site promoters.
Given my view above please clarify, why do you not consider "partial disclosure" of some of the information requested?
The reasons for withholding information are detailed in our previous response. If you do not feel that this exception has been applied correctly then you can request an internal review. Details of how to request an internal review are available at the end of this letter.
5. Please confirm that all information held by SCC, as requested by me originally, remains "unfinished".
Guidance notes from the information commissioner’s office states‘The fact that the exception refers to both material in the course of completion and unfinished documents implies that these terms are not necessarily synonymous. While a particular document may itself be finished, it may be part of material which is still in the course of completion.’ (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1637/eir_material_in_the_course_of_completion.pdf) Page 2
In this case, the information you have requested remains unfinished. In particular, there are significant decisions still to be made as the project is still at pre-application stage. The discussions that you have requested are part of the decision making process and it is this process that remains unfinished.
6. You write "If the meeting minutes are released at this stage it could give both the public and the developers a mis-leading and inaccurate impression of our plans". The word "could " [dictionary definition " possibility"] rather than "would" seems to imply a lack of belief that the adverse effect is more likely than not to happen. EIRs guidance is clear that
"The fact that EIR uses only “would” and not “would be likely” means that the test for engaging these exceptions is more stringent than that for prejudice-based exemptions in FOIA. A public authority cannot engage an exception if it cannot show that the adverse effect is more likely than not to happen (ie if there is a less than 50% chance").
I apologise for the use of my wording, and agree that I should have used ‘would be likely’ (as this is what was meant) rather than ‘could’.
7. RoSAG has previously been informed that SCC have, within the timescale covering our request for information, made specific recommendations / preferences to site promoters to aid the latters' public consultations. Whilst accepting that SCC considers itself as "still at the pre-application stage of this development" it does not accord with public concerns which one would hope would have been evident from our initial request. EIRs is quite clear in its guidance. "Evidence of public concern could also be a factor for disclosure. If there is evidence of public concern but those concerns do not have an objective basis, there can still be a public interest argument for disclosure if this would show that the concerns are unjustified and would help restore confidence in the public authority."
Please clarify why you did not consider this under "Factors in favour of disclosure"
The reasons for withholding information are detailed in our previous response. If you do not feel that this exception has been applied correctly then you can request an internal review. Details of how to request an internal review are available at the end of this letter.
8. It is my opinion that the " Factors in favour of withholding" are not sufficient to outweigh " Factors in favour of disclosure". Please clarify.
The reasons for withholding information are detailed in our previous response. If you do not feel that this exception has been applied correctly then you can request an internal review. Details of how to request an internal review are available at the end of this letter.
If you would like me to pass on questions four, seven and eight for internal review, by our Information Governance team, then please reply to this email.
Alternatively you can contact the Information Governance Team direct via email at [email protected] or post to Information Governance Team, Commercial and Business Services, PP B/C link 1, Somerset County Council, County Hall, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 4DY.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may then appeal directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office with your complaint.
The Information commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire,
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 0303 123 1113
Web address: www.ico.gov.uk
Yours Sincerely,
Information Request Team
email: [email protected]
Telephone: 01823 359560
Direct Dial: 01823 359359
Somerset County Council, Post Point: PP B3E 2, County Hall, Taunton, TA1 4DY
URL: www.somerset.gov.uk
FOI Disclosure Log URL: http://www.somerset.gov.uk/disclosurelog
Saturday 17th October 2015
Letter from RoSAG to Somerset County Council in response to their reply regarding our request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Dear …….. (Information Request Officer)
Thank you for your response to myself on behalf of RoSAG [ Residents of Staplegrove Action Group]. Your response will now be put in the public domain with your personal details omitted whilst we consider our further options.
I would point out that although dated October 13th your response was not sent by email until 11.40 am October 15th. You state you are closing the case as of the date of the letter which I feel is inappropriate.
In your response you state "If you feel your request has not been answered in sufficient detail or if you wish to clarify the information given, please contact me and I will be happy to address the issues you raise".
I write to take advantage of your kind offer.
1.Please clarify why your response took more than the 20 working days which under EIRs is a statutory requirement. Your reply was sent by e-mail on working day 23 following my repeatedly chasing up a response.
2. You state on page 1 sentence 3 “ I can confirm..... withholding some of that information since we consider that exceptions apply to it” . If you are only withholding “some” then please clarify what information you consider you are disclosing.
3. Please clarify your decision to include part 1 [ All discussions ..........] of my request as fully being a matter under EIRs and not FOI.
4. It seems to me improbable that there are no completed records of officers / councillors thoughts which would have been made " in private" and " in a safe space" and not yet shared with site promoters / developers over what is a long period of time. As such records would have contributed to interim public consultations by the site promoters.
Given my view above please clarify why do you not consider "partial disclosure" of some of the information requested .
5. Please confirm that all information held by SCC, as requested by me originally, remains "unfinished".
6. You write "If the meeting minutes are released at this stage it could give both the public and the developers a mis-leading and inaccurate impression of our plans" . The word " could " [dictionary definition " possibility"] rather than "would" seems to imply a lack of belief that the adverse effect is more likely than not to happen. EIRs guidance is clear that
"The fact that EIR uses only “would” and not “would be likely” means that the test for engaging these exceptions is more stringent than that for prejudice-based exemptions in FOIA.
A public authority cannot engage an exception if it cannot show that the adverse effect is more likely than not to happen (ie if there is a less than 50% chance").
7. RoSAG has previously been informed that SCC have, within the timescale covering our request for information, made specific recommendations / preferences to site promoters to aid the latters' public consultations. Whilst accepting that SCC considers itself as "still at the pre-application stage of this development" it does not accord with public concerns which one would hope would have been evident from our initial request. EIRs is quite clear in its guidance. "Evidence of public concern could also be a factor for disclosure. If there is evidence of public concern but those concerns do not have an objective basis, there can still be a public interest argument for disclosure if this would show that the concerns are unjustified and would help restore confidence in the public authority."
Please clarify why you did not consider this under "Factors in favour of disclosure"
8. It is my opinion that the " Factors in favour of withholding" are not sufficient to outweigh " Factors in favour of disclosure". Please clarify.
I am appreciative that you advise how I may follow the formal route to request an Internal Review. However, I hope you will see that by clarifying all above, both sides may avoid delay, wasting public resources and restore RoSAG's confidence in its County Council. The purpose of our seeking the information we requested, was to avoid residents wasting, in particular, councillors' time, raising concerns over the many rumours that abound about this proposed development in relation to SCC's role and to better inform local opinion.
RoSAG followed the FOIA route with TDBC and as a result was able to dispel many "myths".
I look forward to your early response.
In the event of your not replying within 5 working days [Monday October 26th] please consider this as a request for an Internal Review and I therefore ask that you pass this letter to the Information Governance Team no later than Tuesday October 27th and advise me accordingly.
Thank you
Regards
Jackie Calcroft
pp RoSAG
Thursday 15th October 2015
Letter to RoSAG from Somerset County Council in response to our request under the Freedom of Information Act
Information Requests
PP B3E 2
County Hall
Taunton
Somerset
TA1 4DY
Please ask for: ………..
FOI Reference: ……….
Direct Dial: 01823 ………. Email: info.somersetcc@............
Date: 13 October 2015
Dear Ms Calcroft
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
This request is being handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
I can confirm that Somerset County Council holds some of the information you have requested. However, we are withholding some of that information since we consider that exceptions apply to it. Our response is detailed underneath you questions as follows.
The information we seek relates to the period from April 1st 2014 to date and involves:
1. All discussions [ between officers and/or county councillors whether with any consultants and/or site promoters* or not] which have taken place relating to ecological issues and also all transport /highways matters concerning the
proposed " spine" road and it's interface onto exisiting highways to both the east and west of the proposed development. * GL Hearn, PM Asset Management, Ptarmigan, Rockpool]
The information requested is exempt from disclosure under Regulation 12(4)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs). The information consists of material which is still in the course of completion, unfinished documents including drafts or incomplete data.
To use this exception we are required to undertake a public interest test. The matters which were considered in applying the public interest test are as follows:
Factors in favour of disclosure
Accountability and Transparency for the public to know what Somerset County Council are spending public funds on.
Factors in favour of withholding
We are still at the pre-application stage of this development and there are some significant decisions that still need to be made. To release the information at this time would affect the ability of members and officers to ‘think in private’. The council
members and officers need a ‘safe space’ to debate freely and make an informeddecision. To disclose the information at this point would harm the ‘safe space’.
If the meeting minutes are released at this stage it could give both the public and the developers a misleading and inaccurate impression of our plans. This is because we are at a very early stage in the pre-application and the plans are subject to further considerations and change.
2. In addition there seem to be no records of meetings of The Cabinet or Full County Council available on the SCC website post 16/07/2014. Therefore please supply electronic copies of said meetings from August 2014 to date where the above matters were included.
This information is available through our website (www.somerset.gov.uk). A direct link to the information is as follows.
http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/council/meetings/results.asp?ccode=%25&SMonth=July&SYear=2014&EMonth=July&EYear=2014&sort=Meeting_Date+DESC&searchpage=1&Input=Search
To access the information you are looking for click on the ‘Minutes’ and ‘Agenda’ link next to the meeting titled ‘County Council’.
It is considered that the greater public interest therefore lies in not providing the information at this time. In coming to that conclusion, the public interest in providing the information has been carefully weighed against any prejudice to the public interest that might arise from withholding the information; in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
This response therefore acts as a refusal notice under regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations.
Please quote the reference number ………. in any future communications.
If you feel your request has not been answered in sufficient detail or if you wish to clarify the information given, please contact me and I will be happy to address the issues you raise.
If you are not satisfied with our response you may contact the Information Governance Team to request an internal review. An independent investigation of the handling of your request will then be carried out. The conclusions of this investigation, and a fresh decision about the information to be provided, should be sent to you within twenty working days of receipt of this request
To request an Internal Review please respond to this email detailing why you are not satisfied.
Alternatively you can contact the Information Governance Team via email at [email protected]
or post to Information Governance Team, Commercial and Business Services, PP B/C link 1 Somerset County Council, County Hall, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 4DY
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may then appeal directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office with your complaint.
The Information commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Telephone: 0303 123 1113
Web address: www.ico.gov.uk
We would like to hear your views on our service. If you'd like to tell us how we did, you can complete our feedback form online at http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/foifeedback
I will now close your request as of this date.
Yours sincerely
………………………
Information Request Officer
Tuesday 22nd September 2015
The North Taunton Development
A summary of events
This summary is prepared from information sent to RoSAG [FOI request to TDBC for the period April 1 2102 – July 3 2015] and a subsequent meeting with TDBC planning policy officer.
HISTORY
- Back in 2004 as a part of the South West Regional Spatial Strategy [ SWRSS] , The Taunton Urban Extension Study considered whether land to the NW of the town could accommodate an urban extension of up to 4,000 dwellings. Monkton Heathfield was the favoured option, closely followed by Comeytrowe. Staplegrove was not considered able to accommodate this scale of development. The document did however, note that flexibility should be allowed on other sites for a further 1,000 – 2,000 dwellings.
- In 2005 The Taunton Sub-Area Study recommended a strategy which proferred not just being reliant on larger proposed urban extensions to Monkton Heathfield and Comeytrowe but also “smaller” extensions [ these could include land at Bishops Hull, east of the Vivary green wedge, North of Staplegrove, North east Pyrland and at Norton Fitzwarren]
- 2006 – 2008 During this period the Council largely focused on the preparation of the Taunton Town Centre Area Action Plan. Towards the end of 2008 work on the Core Strategy began.
- 2009-2011 This was when the bulk of the work on the Core Strategy was carried out and an event was held at Staplegrove village Hall on Feb 17th 2010. A Core Strategy and Small Sites Consultation was published early in 2010 which included options for an Urban Extension at Staplegrove which were felt to have the potential to accommodate 1,800 new dwellings
- The new Coalition government came to power . The SWRSS was scrapped and the council commissioned new locally derived housing targets. The proposed 1,800 houses at Staplegrove went down to 500-1,500. Development was anticipated to occur after 2016. These figures reflected the fact that masterplanning had, as then, not been undertaken for the site and there were continued uncertainties as to whether the western parcels of land [ now promoted by Ptarmigan] were genuinely likely to be available for development.
THE LAST 3 YEARS 2012 -2015
- Early 2012 brought the examination of the Core Strategy. There was no active promotion of the Staplegrove site since the pre-exisiting agreements between landowners and development partners/ housebuilders had seemingly lapsed.
- In his report the Core Strategy inspector recommended to the Council that in order that the proposed developments at Comeytrowe [ + Staplegrove] could come forward without delay these sites should be allocated in the forthcoming Site Allocations Plan and not the Core Strategy as the council had previously sought. The effect of this report was that in order to adopt an up to date development plan for the Borough, the Council would have to work positively with the site promoters and developers to bring forward land at Comeytrowe and Staplegrove in parallel to the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan with a view to the site coming forward to 2015.This is documented in the published Core Strategy [ SS6]
- The adoption of the various recommendations into the finally approved Core Strategy went to The council’s Strategy committee, then the Executive committee and finally to Full council in Sept 2012. [ This process of the 3 committees is standard and meetings are open to the public with minutes published on the TDBC website]. Work on the SADMP then began.
- Early 2013 = consultations on the Issues and Options SADMP . There was a public exhibition in Staplegrove Village Hall Feb 6th 2013
- In early 2013 the council was approached by G L Hearn.[ G L Hearn had been appointed by PM Asset Management [PMAM] to promote the eastern half of the Staplegrove site]. At this point the western side was not being promoted by landowners or any other party. At this point TDBC confirmed that the “ Cook” land had not yet been confirmed by the family as being available and this needed chasing up.
- May 2013 The Staplegrove Landowners Group met with TDBC where they indicated an intention of submitting an outline application for a first phase of development as early as the end of 2013. The draft of these plans were subject to discussion relating to the scale of the new retail development, highways, access, the location of a local centre and the green wedge. There was discussion around the issue of what level of development could be served without the “Cook“ land. PMAM stated they would raise the avalablity of the “Cook” land with Staplegrove Landowners Group. PMAM also indicated they had had discussions with another landowner in the area around the cycleway link to Gypsy lane. TDBC advised meeting with parish councils . TDBC also stated that “if and when a planning application was advanced on the Staplegrove Broad Location in advance of any allocation in the SADMP there would be a clear need to show how it related to an agreed masterplan”.
- TDBC officers were in discussions directly with landowners of the western side [commonly referred to as the “Cook” land] to ascertain whether or not the land was going to be available in order to decide if the site was appropriate to be included in full in the forthcoming SADMP due to be published in Autumn 2013.
- Autumn 2013. The landowners confirmed the land was available. They began to engage with various companies re site promotion before deciding upon Ptarmigan.
- The Preferred Options Document was published October 2013 and a public exhibition held in Staplegrove Village Hall 21st Nov 2013
- Throughout 2014 there were many meetings which were held between the landowners and their then appointed site promoters [ PMAM and Ptarmigan]. [ Such meetings do not fall within the FOI] There were also meetings regarding the viability of the Staplegrove site which lead to the published, “viability study – SADMP” dated Jan 2015
- There were also meetings of the site promoters with SCC transport officers at which TDBC were not present. [ Hopefully our subsequent FOI request to SCC will throw some light on these discussions once we receive information from them]
- November 2014 A meeting between PMAM, Ptarmigan and TDBC was held. The focus being the SADMP and the Framework Masterplan. An informal note to the site promoters following this meeting covers the due process of roles and dates of the various committees needing to adopt the proposed policies. In addition comments from TDBC regarding the issues of a] need for clarity regarding any proposed development off Corkscrew Lane and how any bus gate would work, b] a lack of employment land, c] the view that the green wedge was insufficient in size, d] burying of powerlines and e] delivery and phasing were mentioned.
- January 2015 Local councillors met with Rockpool [ the site promoters’ PR company] The notes detail that the councillors concerned would forward their lists of concerns / issues. Venues for public exhibitions were discussed and agreed that it would be a good idea to “speak to a wide range of local residents as well as those likely to be most vocal”. It was felt a good idea to hold consultations more widely in Taunton to cover a broad spectrum of people and market day was seen as a positive. Working with The Gazette was proposed as was the setting up of an interactive website. There was reference to a follow up meeting. But there is no record as to whether or not this occurred.
- 2015 Consultation on the SADMP as well as the Staplegrove Framework Masterplan.[ The latter was prepared by the site promoters]
- February 2015 The consultation on the Framework Masterplan [ drawn up by the site promoters]ended on 26th. Earlier that month a meeting between the site promoters representatives and TDBC discussed in detail the green wedge, Raghill in relation to the design of the road , planting , attenuation ponds and public open space. With regard to infrastructure and delivery TDBC requested that a Memorandum of Understanding should be drawn up and discussed preferably prior to any planning application. There is no record of any such meeting yet having taken place.
- No formal notes were taken of a follow up meeting with the Open Space Officer and the Drainage Officer. However, informal notes outlining points discussed state that “ the alignment of the road is a “sticking point”
- July 3rd / 4th 2015 Public consultation in Town centre [ Orchard shopping centre ] and Staplegrove Village Hall
- July 15th 2015 The SADMP went to the Secretary of State and to date awaits comment/ approval.
- July / August 2015 The Staplegrove Framework Masterplan has been considered by the LDF Steering Group. This group does not have published minutes as it is not a committee which is open to the public. However, their recommendations are considered by the Scrutiny and Executive committees prior to full council. All 3 are meetings which are open to the public and have published minutes. So in due course the outcome will be known.
It seems that the issue of the spine road remains a “sticking point “
RoSAG is currently awaiting information from Somerset County Council which has been requested under the FOI . This information relates to meetings and discussions with the County’s Highways officers and the Ecology Officer. Such information should be received by October 12th 2015.
Thursday 20th August 2015
Letter to TDBC from RoSAG in response to our request under the Freedom of Information Act.
August 20th 2015
To the Freedom of Information Act Officer, TDBC
Cc Cllr John Williams, CJ Fomes [WARG], Cllr Hapgood, Rebecca Pow MP, Staplegrove Parish Council, Kingston St Mary Parich Council, Freedom of Information Commissioner, Somerset County Gazette, RoSAG
Dear Madam/ Sir
Thank you for your response to our request placed on July 22nd requesting copies of specific minutes of meetings under the Freedom of Information Act .
Given the small amount of information received covering a period of 3+ years regarding such an important issue, I am disappointed that our request was not dealt with more promptly. Your response was not received until 17.32pm on the deadline date of August 19th. In this respect I draw your attention to the Information Commissioner’s Office [ICO] guidance:
24.“ Authorities should regard the 20 working day limit as a ‘long stop’, in other words the latest possible date on which they may issue a response.”
25 .” It also follows that an authority which provides it’s response close to, or on, the final day of the 20 working day limit ought to be able to both account for and justify the length of time taken to comply with the request.”
RoSAG is of the opinion that only part of the information appears to have been received.
This opinion is based upon:
- [as already stated] there seems to be a paucity of documentation given that the North Taunton Development is such an important issue for TDBC and that we are talking of a period spanning 3+ years . Our request was for information from 1/4/2012
We have received 7 documents
a] letter from a third party to TDBC dated 28 Jan 2013
b]notes of TDBC officers’ meeting dated 15 May 2013
c]notes of TDBC officers’ meeting dated 6 Nov 2014
d]e-mail from third party dated 15 Jan 2015
e]notes of meeting from third party dated Feb 2015
f] TDBC officer amendment to the above third party notes [ Feb 2015]
g] TDBC officers’ notes dated 11th June 2015
- In the above information sent there are references to further meetings of various council committees and / or others, to discuss the North Taunton Development. Yet the minutes of the said meetings are not included and given the timescales it would seem reasonable to have expected them to have taken place prior to 3/7/2015.
- There is no response to our request for the minutes of council meetings where the decision was made to bring forward Staplegrove as a strategic site within the Council’s Core Strategy.
We acknowledge and appreciate your drawing our attention to copyright restrictions regarding the information sent and will follow this up. I would remind you that our initial request was made on behalf of our residents group of 160+ members and not on behalf of myself as an individual. Unless I hear to the contrary within 7 working days I will take it as confirmed by yourselves that I may post the documents initiated by TDBC on our website [ where we update our members]. In respect of information supplied by a third party to TDBC I will ascertain with the respective organisation/ group that I may share the information with RoSAG via our website prior to so doing.
I would therefore urge that our request for a review is considered as a matter of some urgency in order for Residents of Staplegrove Action Group [ RoSAG] to uphold confidence in elected members and the council.
Full details of our exact request including referring to specific documents received will be with you no later than Monday August 24th 2015
In the meantime we look forward your reply and comments on all of the above
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Jackie Calcroft
Pp RoSAG
Thursday 23rd July 2015
Letter to RoSAG from TDBC informing the submission of TDBC Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (SADMP) to the Secretary of State.
Our Ref: ALR/S02/SADMP Draft Plan Submission
22th July 2015
Dear Mrs Calcroft
Submission of Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (SADMP)
At the beginning of the year you made representations on behalf of residents of Staplegrove Action Group on the Taunton Deane Borough Council’s Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan. This document was submitted to the Secretary of State on 13th July 2015.
In accordance with Section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; following on from the recent publication deposit of the Draft Site Allocation and Development Management Plan; all the representations received, as well as the Site Allocation and Development Plan itself, and associated documents have been submitted to the Secretary of State.
The Planning Inspectorate will appoint an Independent Planning Inspector, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to look at all the documentation and information submitted and oversee the Examination of the Plan.
Everyone who submitted representations in response to the recent publication of the Plan will receive a letter or email from the Programme Officer confirming the date, time and place of the Examination hearings and the name of the appointed Inspector. The Programme Officer manages the running of the Examination and supports the Independent Inspector during the process.
The Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (SADMP) sets out policies for the allocation of land for housing, employment and other development proposals across Taunton Deane excluding the allocations in the Taunton town centre, for the period up to 2028. It also contains detailed development management policies against which planning applications will be considered. Policies in the SADMP must be justified, effective, positively prepared, and consistent with strategic policies in the adopted Core Strategy and national planning policy.
All matters associated with the Examination, including summaries of representations and supporting documents will be available on the Council’s website www.tauntondeane.gov.uk/siteallocations and at Planning Reception at Deane House, Belvedere Road, Taunton, TA1 1HE.
If you have any queries, please contact the Council’s Planning Policy Team on: [email protected].
If you no longer wish to be on our consultation database please let us know by email.
Yours Faithfully
Planning Policy
Wednesday 22nd July 2015
RoSAG has sent this letter to Cllr Williams leader of TDBC. Copies have been sent to Cllr Roger Habgood and Rebecca Pow M.P.
July 22nd 2015
Dear Cllr Williams,
I write on behalf of the 160+ residents in our group to yet again re-iterate that we believe that the proposed development for North Taunton is inappropriate, premature, ill-conceived and unworkable.
In the original Core Strategy, this site was put forward for possible development of between 500 and 1500 houses IF needed at the end of Taunton Deane’s house building project [ approx 2023 -2028].
It is our assumption that development on this site may have been escalated because the landowners have come forward early creating an unexpected opportunity for the Borough. This may well be an incorrect assumption and there was probably formal, serious debate and voting by the council to justify both the appropriateness and escalation of this project. As we have been unable to find such records on your comprehensive website I am writing with a request under the freedom of information act to ask that you furnish us with the relevant details as to the decision making to bring this site forward so prematurely and justify its now proposed size.
· We would like copies of the minutes of all meetings held between Ptarmigan, PMAM, and / or Hearn’s with TDBC [ some meetings may include others] from April 1st 2012 to July 3rd 2015.
· In addition we request copies of the minutes of meetings held between TDBC councillors from 1st April 2012 to July 3rd 2015 when the proposed Staplegrove development was discussed.
This proposed development would see the loss of an abundance of wildlife habitats and a vast area of prime agricultural land, which once built upon, could never be re-instated. A growing population means more food will be needed. Development in this area will add to the depletion of locally produced food and add to the need to import goods from other countries [often of inferior quality due to farming methods and miles travelled]. Recent research has shown that red meat produced in our own country is far more nutritious and less harmful to health due to the way cattle are reared and the quality of pasture. No doubt thanks to local, high grade agricultural land this is even more the case here in Taunton itself!
To proceed with this development would create a possible 5 separate sets of traffic lights on a length of the A358 by the Silk Mills roundabout which is less than 500 metres in length! This will certainly not help ease current traffic congestion which frustrated, Taunton road users, face daily!
There remain many unfinished initiatives within Taunton Deane and without their completion and evaluation upon existing infrastructure and the availability of empty brown field sites it seems to us to be imprudent to initiate others. Reviews of the Core Strategy Review and the SADMP have not yet taken place. We would urge that it is vital that these are carried out and fully evaluated with public consultation before any further decisions are taken by the Council.
To proceed with the North Taunton Development without a massive re-think of Taunton’s infrastructure, and in particular highways and the proposed new employment site at J 25 [ the opposite side of town!] along with the loss of prime agricultural land will not inspire electors’ confidence in the decision makers who represent them.
I look forward to receiving the requested information and your comments on this most concerning issue.
Many thanks
Yours sincerely
Jackie Calcroft
pp RoSAG
Tuesday 15th July 2015
Letter and Feedback Information to North Taunton Consultation, Origin3 Ltd.
Consultation Feedback North Taunton Development
RoSAG currently represents over 160 people. This response sums up the overall views of RoSAG following a meeting held on July 9th 2015. We address question by question as per your feedback form.
Thankyou for your consideration of our response
Jackie Calcroft
pp RoSAG
Question 1
If the question is aimed at the proposed development being brought forward from it’s original timescale and smaller size within Taunton Deane’s Core Strategy then we have to say that we feel 100% unable to support the proposals. They are inappropriate, premature, ill-conceived and unworkable.
We take this stance because given the proposed size of the development we are of firm belief that the current surrounding infrastructure or employment opportunities will not be sufficiently improved to support the proposal and this will be detrimental to Taunton itself. We are also of the opinion that the use of prime agricultural land is iniquitous.
Question 2
We answer this in line with the way the question is posed i.e in relation to Taunton per se and not specifically North Taunton
There is a need for truly affordable housing in Taunton . Our interpretation of truly affordable means that it must be affordable to local people and local wages. Pegging affordable house costs in line with national levels does not make it affordable. Taunton also needs a good range of high quality houses of all sizes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the questions are answered in relation to IF this proposal has to go ahead. We make our suggestions and comments with the intention of hopefully shaping the final outcome for the benefit of existing local residents as well as “new” ones.
Question 3
The spine road is and always has been the big issue in relation to this proposed development. Until this consultation, the northern route for the spine road [ route B] has always been the sole option. Now at the 11th hour a southern route [ Route A] is the preferred option by PMAM and Ptarmigan .
Both routes will be visible from differing parts of the Quantocks due to land contours. Both routes will destroy wildlife habitats as will all new build on green field sites, especially prime, agricultural land!
- Route B still remains the most eminently sensible option for the following reasons:
- Route B reduces the risk of flooding. Route A attenuation ponds necessitate flood water crossing the road to drain into them
- Route B creates less need for cyclists, pedestrians, runners to cross the spine road to access the green wedge or Taunton facilities and therefore reduces potential injuries to these groups
- Route B creates less noise pollution for existing residents and Staplegrove conservation area as there will be more density of housing to act as a buffer. Where the preferred option A spine road circles the top of a proposed green space and the existing Staplegrove sports field traffic noise has no buffer to stop it permeating the village.
- Route B does not cut off Whitmore Lane residents from their connectivity to Staplegrove village. They are adamant that they wish to keep their identity with their village.
- If the council so wish route B could, subject to highways constraints , be a part of a much needed Northern Outer Distributor Road
- Route B keeps the junction at Kingston Road further from Hope Corner Lane
- Route B does not divide the community as significantly as Route A
Question 4
The site promoters’ proposals seem fairly inclusive. We are aware however, that employment, educational, leisure and medical facilities rely upon third party investment.
Question 5
The site promoters’ proposals seem fairly inclusive. However, we do have concerns about the lack of green space to the West of the proposed development compared to the East and ask that this percentage balance is re-considered as a matter of some urgency. Long term management of all green spaces is a serious concern.
Question 6
The upgrade must be sufficient, as stated, to accommodate all new build, A minimum suitable distance for burying lines underground to minimise potential health risks MUST be a priority.
Question 7
We are concerned that the water management issues of this site have not been given sufficient consideration. The site promoters do not seem to have been made fully aware of local flooding patterns. We consider future flooding an increased risk to the village especially as there is little green space behind the village itself. Attenuation ponds overall do not appear to be suitably sited or sufficient in quantity.
Further comments
Overall , in addition to the many serious concerns raised above, we have issues regarding access from Manor Road and Corkscrew Lane at the side of Village World before the completion of a spine road.
A detailed construction traffic management plan must ensure that vehicles are kept away from Manor Road and Corkscrew Lane.
Tuesday 7th July 2015
North Taunton Development have published the Consultation Event Boards which are available to download here
These and the feedback form can also be downloaded using the links in "Further Information" on this site
Friday 26th June 2015
National Trust response (June 2014) regarding land at Pyrland.
From: "Murray, Simon" <[email protected]>
Date: 27 June 2014 16:06:20 BST
To: Subject: Development at Pyrland
Dear
Thank you for your email regarding the development around Taunton and from the Trust's perspective our land at Pyrland. Taunton Deane are currently consulting on a number of possible future development areas around Taunton. The Staplegrove area includes some of the land we own at what we call Pyrland.
The National Trust remains committed to the preservation of countryside and our policy advocates the use of brown field land for development before using green field land. The national planning policy has made it easier for development of houses on green field land, whilst we acknowledge the need to provide homes for the growing population we must ensure we utilise the most appropriate land areas for these developments.
With regard to Pyrland this was gifted to the trust by John Adams along with Fyne Court at Broomfield, about 5 miles north of Taunton, and we accepted it on behalf of the nation in the 1960's, with the clear instruction in the Will that Pyrland was to be utilised as investment property to provide the endowment for Fyne Court. Fyne Court is a small yet important property visited by around 35,000 people a year, many from Taunton. The endowment ensures that we can manage Fyne Court in perpetuity and has enough money in its own right. Since we acquired it Pyrland has been managed in a low key manner through a tenant farmer with the knowledge that one day all or part of it could be disposed of.
Taunton Deane Borough Council approached us about the possibility of acquiring land back in 2005 as they were looking for land for affordable houses. With nothing decided or agreed with Taunton Deane we carried out a local awareness campaign where we held a number of public evenings at Ladymead School to make local people aware of why the Trust had Pyrland and what could happen at some point in the future. At that time we engaged with a number of people along Hope Corner and Corkscrew Lanes to discuss this in more detail. The initial approach by Taunton Deane has just come to fruition with the building works now underway as you know on land off the Cheddon Road where the first 30 affordable homes are being built for local people. It's taken a long time but we have been able to help local people with their first homes and also begin to build up the endowment at Fyne Court. The initiative has been largely received well by the community.
We feel that this latest option gives us the opportunity to not only make use of the land to meet the bequest of John Adams but also play a full and active part in helping to shape the north edge of Taunton around Staplegrove by providing land for much needed houses, new schools and transport links. In doing so, we can help to influence building design, improvements to the landscape, especially the historic landscape of Pyrland Hall, ensure green space is well designed and sustainable, and increase access. In terms of our funds and needs we are an independent charity entirely dependent on the generosity of our members and supporters. Each year we carry out over £100m of conservation work and this need will only increase in coming years so we do need to consider our income seriously. We want to and do work with people, listen and take on board views from local people who can also help to influence future developments. We have experience of this at other development sites around the country and we know we can influence for the better. We work within the local planning framework and democratic process and are not development led. We're not opposed to development because we know we need it, but we want to ensure its development in the right place and with the right safeguards. Less than 1% of all the land we own is classed as investment land and as a charity we have a responsibility, enforced by the Charity Commission, to ensure we use it for the betterment of our charitable purposes.
We appreciate new developments can be a controversial issue but I hope that I have reassured you somewhat that our approach is rigorous and you are able to continue supporting our work.
Yours sincerely
Simon Murray
Saturday 13th June 2015
Rosag have written to Rebacca Pow and we reproduce our letter below.
Dear Ms Pow
Firstly, congratulations on your becoming our Member of Parliament.
RoSAG [Residents of Staplegrove Action Group] look forward to “Taunton Deane having a strong, local voice in the House of Commons”.
You may recall meeting with our core group, pre-elections, and asking to be “kept in the loop”.
We feel that now is an appropriate time to invite you back to meet with us.
The proposed Staplegrove Urban Development programme is now nearing an application for outline planning permission. The first weekend in July will see the site promoters’ final public exhibition before this application is submitted a few weeks later.
Details are:
Friday 3rd July: Orchard Shopping Centre 10am – 3pm
Saturday 4th July: Staplegrove Village Hall 10.30am – 3.30pm
RoSAG woud like to invite you to join them on Saturday July 4th at Staplegrove Village Hall.
Back in April, you will recall, we raised our main concerns with you regarding the proposed development in our area.
· - The whole of the proposed area is prime, productive agricultural land
· - TDBC themselves acknowledge that our local roads cannot cope with any increase in traffic. A spine road for the proposed 1,500 houses must be constructed before any house build commences
· - Beautiful countryside regularly enjoyed by many who live in Taunton itself , will be lost for good
· - The development is on the wrong side of town for those needing to commute to work – Most employment if we are realistic will, at best ,be by Junction 25 if that comes to fruition, or more likely be out of area .
Since meeting with you our concerns have been heightened due to recent findings.
· - The SADMP defines the area in question as having “ no impact” on the loss of prime agricultural [ Lepus Consultants – Sustainability Appraisal]. Their decision is based upon information taken from Natural England ALC [Agric Land Classification] maps. In addition they state that the latter does not differentiate between grades 3a and 3b but only use the classification - grade 3 They also state that building should not occur on land above grade 3a . [ Please refer to page 79 of the Sustainability report]
However, Defra’s ALC maps detail the majority of the proposed area as grade 2 land with a very small section of grade 3a to the west . We have confirmed this information is up to date with Defra. [ Please refer to http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx ]
· - Somerset prides itself , and quite justly enjoys a good reputation, for locally sourced fresh produce for it’s local outlets. . Yet, TDBC are happy to give up a large area of very productive land when it has sufficient pockets of brownfield sites , left abandoned and undeveloped, in more suitable, sustainable areas. TDBC documentation , despite recommendations that agricultural land grade 3a or above should not be built upon, states that because the Borough enjoys higher levels of prime agricultural land than the national average, then “some” other areas will need to be lost to housing!
Unnecessarily, depleting prime grade 2 agricultural land for house building is a retrograde, short term gain. This land can never be re-instated.
· - Allegedly there are 1100 empty dwellings in TDBC! What is being done to put these into the equation for housing need ?
· - Our local County Councillor tells us that SCC’s Education Department have already stated that there is no money for a school on this particular, proposed site and additional places at local schools will need to be created! We understand that not only are these schools full , their sites are too!
· - The latest update on the site promoters’ website makes no reference whatsoever to the inclusion of a spine road.
· - In their updated Infrastructure Development Plan [ IDP Dec 2014]TDBC seem to only refer to upgrading transport links for the proposed Staplegrove development by increasing the number of park and ride places from 600 to 1000 at a cost of £0.92m but not until the period 2024 -2028 !
· - The Government Inspectors Report states [ ref the Core Strategy paragraph 5.71 Staplegrove], that strategic allocations will only be made as part of the Review of this Core Strategy in 2016, with full community involvement.
It is our opinion that many of Taunton Deane’s decisions have already resulted in an irreversible loss of a great chunk of prime agricultural land. No doubt a decision to be regretted in later years.
Decisions regarding alleged highways improvements so far, have meant that roads literally “lead to nowhere”. Roads do not link up but serve only to exacerbate traffic problems. Your own literature acknowledges “ traffic in Taunton Deane is one of the biggest issues that people ask [ you] about and is something [ you have been] actively campaigning to improve. The proposed Staplegrove development will only serve to severely aggravate an already intolerable situation .
A great deal of public money has already been “wasted “ on promises that never materialise . This cannot be allowed to happen again. The continued hype regarding Firepool lacks public confidence . Eight years down the road we are no nearer this promised wonderful “regeneration”.
A recent letter in the local Gazette proposes a “ think outside the box “ approach to Firepool. The possible loss of the Hydrographic Office which you personally and quite rightly, are trying to keep here in Taunton could move to Firepool thus releasing much needed building land ideally placed for shops, road access and on the right side of town for commuters.
Taunton is in danger of becoming a satellite town Satellite towns need effective highways!
However, Taunton is and should be the “ County Town”. Something the Borough seem to have forgotten .
We urge you to join us on July 4th. Please let us know what time suits you and we will ensure we are at the Village Hall to meet with you. [ If you are happy for press coverage we will try to secure it]
Thank you in anticipation of your support
Kind regards
Jackie Calcroft
pp RoSAG
Rosag have written to Rebacca Pow and we reproduce our letter below.
Dear Ms Pow
Firstly, congratulations on your becoming our Member of Parliament.
RoSAG [Residents of Staplegrove Action Group] look forward to “Taunton Deane having a strong, local voice in the House of Commons”.
You may recall meeting with our core group, pre-elections, and asking to be “kept in the loop”.
We feel that now is an appropriate time to invite you back to meet with us.
The proposed Staplegrove Urban Development programme is now nearing an application for outline planning permission. The first weekend in July will see the site promoters’ final public exhibition before this application is submitted a few weeks later.
Details are:
Friday 3rd July: Orchard Shopping Centre 10am – 3pm
Saturday 4th July: Staplegrove Village Hall 10.30am – 3.30pm
RoSAG woud like to invite you to join them on Saturday July 4th at Staplegrove Village Hall.
Back in April, you will recall, we raised our main concerns with you regarding the proposed development in our area.
· - The whole of the proposed area is prime, productive agricultural land
· - TDBC themselves acknowledge that our local roads cannot cope with any increase in traffic. A spine road for the proposed 1,500 houses must be constructed before any house build commences
· - Beautiful countryside regularly enjoyed by many who live in Taunton itself , will be lost for good
· - The development is on the wrong side of town for those needing to commute to work – Most employment if we are realistic will, at best ,be by Junction 25 if that comes to fruition, or more likely be out of area .
Since meeting with you our concerns have been heightened due to recent findings.
· - The SADMP defines the area in question as having “ no impact” on the loss of prime agricultural [ Lepus Consultants – Sustainability Appraisal]. Their decision is based upon information taken from Natural England ALC [Agric Land Classification] maps. In addition they state that the latter does not differentiate between grades 3a and 3b but only use the classification - grade 3 They also state that building should not occur on land above grade 3a . [ Please refer to page 79 of the Sustainability report]
However, Defra’s ALC maps detail the majority of the proposed area as grade 2 land with a very small section of grade 3a to the west . We have confirmed this information is up to date with Defra. [ Please refer to http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx ]
· - Somerset prides itself , and quite justly enjoys a good reputation, for locally sourced fresh produce for it’s local outlets. . Yet, TDBC are happy to give up a large area of very productive land when it has sufficient pockets of brownfield sites , left abandoned and undeveloped, in more suitable, sustainable areas. TDBC documentation , despite recommendations that agricultural land grade 3a or above should not be built upon, states that because the Borough enjoys higher levels of prime agricultural land than the national average, then “some” other areas will need to be lost to housing!
Unnecessarily, depleting prime grade 2 agricultural land for house building is a retrograde, short term gain. This land can never be re-instated.
· - Allegedly there are 1100 empty dwellings in TDBC! What is being done to put these into the equation for housing need ?
· - Our local County Councillor tells us that SCC’s Education Department have already stated that there is no money for a school on this particular, proposed site and additional places at local schools will need to be created! We understand that not only are these schools full , their sites are too!
· - The latest update on the site promoters’ website makes no reference whatsoever to the inclusion of a spine road.
· - In their updated Infrastructure Development Plan [ IDP Dec 2014]TDBC seem to only refer to upgrading transport links for the proposed Staplegrove development by increasing the number of park and ride places from 600 to 1000 at a cost of £0.92m but not until the period 2024 -2028 !
· - The Government Inspectors Report states [ ref the Core Strategy paragraph 5.71 Staplegrove], that strategic allocations will only be made as part of the Review of this Core Strategy in 2016, with full community involvement.
It is our opinion that many of Taunton Deane’s decisions have already resulted in an irreversible loss of a great chunk of prime agricultural land. No doubt a decision to be regretted in later years.
Decisions regarding alleged highways improvements so far, have meant that roads literally “lead to nowhere”. Roads do not link up but serve only to exacerbate traffic problems. Your own literature acknowledges “ traffic in Taunton Deane is one of the biggest issues that people ask [ you] about and is something [ you have been] actively campaigning to improve. The proposed Staplegrove development will only serve to severely aggravate an already intolerable situation .
A great deal of public money has already been “wasted “ on promises that never materialise . This cannot be allowed to happen again. The continued hype regarding Firepool lacks public confidence . Eight years down the road we are no nearer this promised wonderful “regeneration”.
A recent letter in the local Gazette proposes a “ think outside the box “ approach to Firepool. The possible loss of the Hydrographic Office which you personally and quite rightly, are trying to keep here in Taunton could move to Firepool thus releasing much needed building land ideally placed for shops, road access and on the right side of town for commuters.
Taunton is in danger of becoming a satellite town Satellite towns need effective highways!
However, Taunton is and should be the “ County Town”. Something the Borough seem to have forgotten .
We urge you to join us on July 4th. Please let us know what time suits you and we will ensure we are at the Village Hall to meet with you. [ If you are happy for press coverage we will try to secure it]
Thank you in anticipation of your support
Kind regards
Jackie Calcroft
pp RoSAG
Saturday 13th June 2015
Reproduced below is the site promoters' consultation leaflet with correct red ouline.
Reproduced below is the site promoters' consultation leaflet with correct red ouline.
Wednesday 10th June 2015
Details of the site promoters' public consultation are as follows,
Friday 3rd July: Orchard Shopping Centre 10am – 3pm
Saturday 4th July: Staplegrove Village Hall 10.30am – 3.30pm
Please do your utmost to attend as this will help you make an informed decision
Monday 13th April 2015.
As an organisation RoSAG does not support any particular political party.
However, we believe that we should take advantage of any opportunity to lobby those who may be in power after the coming elections and raise awareness of our concerns. An invitation has been sent to each of the four main political parties [Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UKIP].
As of March 13th we have had only one response to our invitations and have met with that candidate.
We discussed the development and its suitability within Staplegrove. The main focus, however, related to our concerns regarding the proposed spine road and the associated junctions where it joins the existing road network.
In addition we have contacted Somerset County Council [SCC] with regard to the above and await their reply.
We have also met with one candidate for TDBC and are pursuing others.
However, we are more hopeful that we will start to make “roads” [ sorry for the pun!] into SCC as the parliamentary candidate we met with has offered to contact SCC’s chief highways officer on our behalf. Hopefully this will lead to a meeting with the relevant personnel.
In addition we have sent an invitation to our County Councillor to meet with us.
On Wednesday May 20th at 6pm in Staplegrove Village Hall our new Parish Council will hold its meeting. Please do your utmost to attend. The agenda is published in advance on the Parish Council Website.
Sunday 29th March 2015.
Summary of meeting held on Wednesday 25th March between TDBC [ Leader of the Council Cllr John Williams and Planning Policy Manager Nick Bryant] and Rosag along with WARG, Staplegrove Parish Council and Kingston St Mary Parish Council.
- TDBC were told that there is growing strength of feeling across North Taunton that the proposed development is unwanted and logistically other areas should be considered.
- TDBC were advised that pursuing this development without a completed spine road before building work starts was a “train crash waiting to happen”. It would put extra pressure on the wider highway infrastructure, journey to work times and access to the M5.
- The Council said the vote for Staplegrove as a preferred site went back to September 2012 and as such the "principle regarding this site is committed”.
- The Government had identified 22,000 houses in its original housing needs study. A review had reduced this number to 17,000.
- The County Council are responsible as the Strategic Transport Authority. They have approved the land development but are not prepared to fund the spine road. TDBC do not have the monies to fund the road. The developer is expected to fund the road via the C. I. L. [ Community Infrastructure Levy].
- The original plan for an Outer Distributor Road was raised. TDBC advised that The County Council needed to be lobbied re this. Should an O.D.R. be pursued by S.C.C. it’s route might need to extend more northerly which in the future could lead to more development in that area.
- Timescales are :
Site allocations within the SADMP are currently out for consultation. Outcomes should appear on TDBC’s website towards the end of May.
The Planning Inspector [govt] is likely to hold his / her enquiry late Summer / early Autumn.
Site developers: It is at their discretion when, after reviewing the Staplegrove Masterplan Framework comments submitted, they decide to approach the Council. TDBC think this will probably happen in Summer this year. They will be seeking agreement at this stage. [This is not approval as this requires full planning permission].
- At the end of the meeting TDBC were left under no illusion that sentiments towards the proposed development in Staplegrove remained as at the outset.
The Way Ahead
- We believe that the most appropriate course of action is to pursue the issue of the existing wider road infrastructure and in particular where the proposed spine road connects at a) Staplegrove Road and b) Kingston Road.
- We will continue to lobby TDBC and ultimately S.C.C. regarding the above with the aim to set up a meeting with their respective Highways departments to discuss the current difficulties faced by residents as a result of the current highways system and the impact that the new development will have on the area.
What can members do?
- Taunton’s traffic problems extend across the whole of our area and are not solely confined to North Taunton.
- Please approach any friends / family in the Taunton area to get them to add their voice – The Gazette / TDBC / S.C.C. They can also approach us via e-mail if they wish to add to our representations. The more numbers the more powerful our voice will be!
- Collect information for us. Staplegrove Speedwatch team have some useful data on traffic movements on Manor Road. If we are to question the whole highways system across Taunton we need similar data / daily experiences of journeys across the whole area.
- Lobby prospective council / MP candidates and ask their stance on Taunton’s roads!