Agenda item

A period of up to 15 minutes is available to deal with issues raised by the public;

O&S.25/16     

In accordance with the Public Forum Procedure Rules, the following questions had been received for consideration during this agenda item:

(a)    Questions from Georgina Allen:

(i)         Could we please be informed of the precise steps that would need to be taken to remove T3 from the Joint Plan?

(ii)        Could you explain why it is necessary for an area to be in the Joint Plan for it to be enhanced? Surely it is possible to improve an area without it being in a document intended to explain where development will go?

(iii)       What covenants and charters cover the land in T3?

(iv)      Would the Council accept the outcome of a full referendum regarding whether or not T3 should be in the Joint Plan if the town council carried one out?

(v)       Seeing as the land in T3 is held in trust by SHDC, could the council explain how it can justify selling assets against the wishes of a community?

(vi)      Could the council please explain why they told a meeting of the market traders that none of the square would be built on, when they have plans for commercial units on the front and 20 houses on the back?

(vii)     Can T3 be taken out of the Joint Plan without it affecting the five year supply cover?

(viii)    How can T3 be left in the Joint Plan if it means the Neighbourhood Plan will fail its referendum if T3 is left in?

(b)   Question from Richard Szczepura:

The T3 area of Totnes in the Joint Local Plan is identified as a target for the building of some 70 houses. There are quite a number of recent and proposed developments in Totnes, such as the two new houses next to the Nursery car park, the submitted application for two affordable houses in Paige Adams Road and the proposed housing included in the outline plans for the Brunel site next to the railway station. Can account been taken of these houses, and future proposals, as an alternative to building in the T3 area?

(c)    Question from LynSzczepura:

The T3 area of Totnes in the Joint Local Plan is identified as a target for the building of some 70 houses. If the identified car parks were to be built on, up 180 parking places would lost in the centre of the town. A large number of residents living in central Totnes do not have private parking facilities and rely on these car parks.  People in employment often need convenient access to their vehicles if they have to travel to work, without this their livelihoods could be affected.

If these existing car parking facilities are removed, what plans are in place to provide essential accessible parking for residents?

In the order that they were presented, Cllr Hicks (lead Executive Member provided the following responses:

Response to Question (a)(i):

“The decision as to which proposals were included in the final plan sat with the individual Councils which made up the Joint Plan. The current plan (with a small p) was to finalise the preparation of the Plan sometime in early 2017 and we would not know until then what would, or would not, be included.”

Response to Question (a)(ii):

“The preparatory work which was completed before any proposal was included in the Plan, enabled a number of processes in the normal planning system to be partially completed. I believe the question included a misunderstanding about what a Local Plan was all about. It was a plan for an area for the future and included many aspects not just development. The aspiration of this Council had always been to support the furthering of the town centre amenity and operation subject to the necessary funding.  Indeed, the development of the Town Centre over the last twenty years or so had been facilitated by this Council in conjunction with local organisations and the Town Council.”

Response to Question (a)(iii):

“I am not able to answer this question at this moment but we have our relevant legal officers working on it. As a matter of interest they have just completed a similar exercise for a site in Kingsbridge.”

Combined Response to Questions (a)(iv), (v) and (viii):

“The Local Plan process, which was now in its second year, was underpinned by the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) process.  It was important to note (and N.P.Groups know this) that a Neighbourhood Plan had to accord with the Local Plan and this was a safeguard to limit the chance of either plan being found “unsound” by the Inspector.

There was no requirement for the Local Plan to be submitted to a referendum.  This was, however, the requirement for Neighbourhood Plans. We believe the Neighbourhood Plan would not fail in Totnes. The members of the group were responsible residents of Totnes and I am sure they would represent their findings accurately to the Town.

South Hams District Council was a legally constituted body with a formal constitution. We do not hold our assets “in trust” in the true sense of the phrase but our Constitution required that decisions about selling assets and, indeed, buying assets are made within a series of controlled processes. One important requirement was that these decisions were made in the best interests of the whole South Hams area.”

Response to Question (a)(vi):

“I am not aware of any meetings where such a broad ranging commitment had been made by this Council.  However, we were supportive of the principal of a Market Square in the centre of Totnes i.e. within T3 and the questioner knew full well that there was a protection in force for this area. The difficulty came from defining the area exactly. This additional definition would be included in the Plan at Reg. 19.  All those concerned could be assured that during the remaining process and any subsequent potential planning would be subject to a whole load of consultation, design etc. before any decisions were made and our interest would be enhancement – nothing less. Having plans (with a small p) did not mean a decision made. We were always considering new proposals.”

Response to Question (a)(vii):

“There was a very tenuous connection between T3 and a five year land supply.  Such land supply was the result of a complicated and detailed calculation which was carried out at regular intervals throughout the life of a Local Plan and was applicable to the larger planning areas not local issues.”

Response to Question (b):

“It was wrong to assume that figures which were inserted in the Local Plan such as the 70 in T3 refers to houses per se. What we talk about when considering possible numbers on individual sites was dwellings. It was incorrect to refer to this as a target. It was just a possibility for consideration. One further factor. Because these were not targets they should not be used as sort of bargaining numbers.”

Response to Question (c):

“I would make the same comment concerning targets as in question b (above). Your question related to car parks. As the Local Planning Authority, we had given many assurances about the feared loss of car parking space in Totnes. Please accept our current assurance that car parking provision in Totnes centre would not be lost.”

In concluding this agenda item, the Chairman thanked the questioners and Cllr Hicks for his responses.  Since the allocated fifteen minute time slot had expired, the Chairman advised the questioners that, if they wished to ask any supplementary questions, they should send them in writing to: member.services@swdevon.gov.uk