Final Group Submission · Submission 1 Contents page 2 Annexes page 3 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Population Demographics and Projections 4 3.0 Amenities and Recreation 6 4.0 Tourism and

1

Submission to Mid Devon District Council Forward Planning and

Conservation Department by the West Manley Lane

Conservation Group regarding Mid Devon Allocations and

Infrastructure Development Plan Document

November 2009

West Manley Lane Conservation Group

2

PARA CONTENTS PAGESubmission 1

Contents page 2

Annexes page 3

1.0 Introduction 4

2.0 Population Demographics and Projections 4

3.0 Amenities and Recreation 6

4.0 Tourism and Canal Impact 7

5.0 Tidcombe Fen SSSI - Protection and Drainage 8

6.0 Flooding 9

7.0 Hedgerow Assessment and Wildlife 12

8.0 Education – New Primary School 13

9.0 History and Archaeology 14

10.0 Traffic 15

11.0 Police and Protection of Property 16

12.0 Agricultural Impact 16

13.0 Re-designation of 11.43hectares 18

14.0 Junction 27 18

15.0 Eastern Urban Extension Phasing and Funding 19

16.0 Conclusion 22


3

ANNEXESANNEXES PAGE

1 Photographs No: 1 - 15 23 - 29

2 Bird and Mammal List Tidcombe Fen SSSI 30 - 32

3 Map - Indicating watershed catchment area of Ailsa Brook 33

4 Avifauna with conservation status 34 - 35

5 Mammals recorded in proposed development area 36

6 Map - Indicating 11.43 hectares south of West Manley Lane 37

7 Map - Alternative sites for re-designation of 11.43 hectares 38


4

WEST MANLEY LANE CONSERVATION GROUP SUBMISSION

INTRODUCTION

1.0 This response to the Allocations and Infrastructure Development Plan Document is provided by the West Manley Lane Conservation Group (WMLCG) a body of like-minded residents formed to bring to the attention of Mid Devon District Council planning officers and the Inspector why they believe the DPD for the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension is unsound and why the land to the south of West Manley Lane (WML) should be excluded from the mixed use allocation.

POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS AND PROJECTIONS

2.0 In September 2009 the BBC reported that “government has announced it is to rethink its controversial plans to build more than half a million new homes in the South West region of England”.

2.1 In May 2009 the High Court ruled that DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) and GOSW (Government Office for the South West) had not considered “reasonable alternatives” and that the expectations of population growth were extortionately high. The GOSW stated that it would now carry out a new appraisal to ensure the current blueprints represent the most suitable way forward for the region. Meanwhile the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West’s (RSSSW) plan has yet to be signed off. This apparent over-exaggeration of the South West’s housing targets has continued at a local level in Tiverton.

2.2 From the very beginning of the consultation process Mid Devon Planning Officers have been unable to give consistent information in relation to the predicted growth of Tiverton through to 2026.

2.3 Indeed during the process, it was a member of the WMLCG who brought to the attention of Mid Devon planners The Tiverton Town Population Projection published by Devon County Council’s Strategic Intelligence Unit (DCCSIU) in July 2007 (Annex: 2). The Senior Planning Officer for Mid Devon was not aware of the report until brought to his attention in December 2008 by which time the Exe DPD – Issues and Options Report had already been published.

2.4 The DCCSIU commented in January 2009 that the Mid Devon Planning Officers’ “projections”…”were wildly optimistic at the time and are even more so now” (pers comm.)

2.5 Currently we are presented with MDDC Core Policy 13 which recommends 2,900 dwellings for Tiverton whilst the RSSSW recommends 3200 dwellings for Tiverton. 3,200 dwellings would suggest a population increase in excess of 7,680 persons and yet the forecast by DCCSIU is for 3,750 persons. DCC predict that


5

the population of the Tiverton area will increase between 2006 and 2021 by 9.5%. The DPD is planning for a population rise of almost 20%.2.6 The Core Strategy provides for in excess of 130,000 sq m of employment space and yet Tiverton’s working age population (age 20 – 64 years) is predicted to grow by a minute increase of 439 persons over 20 years; but there is no indication from where this increased work force is to be drawn.Already 60% of Tivertonians commute elsewhere to work (see 14.1 Junction 27) particularly to Exeter, where the city provides employment opportunities of a higher technical ability (IT, University teaching, communications) which could not be sustained in Tiverton. This only continues because Tiverton has forged ahead with a large building programme of housing far in excess of local needs, offering cheaper housing than that available in Exeter or Taunton.

2.7 Unemployment in Tiverton remains below the national average despite this new housing and the so called chronic shortage of employment land. The DPD should not be looking to provide unwanted employment space but to concentrate on housing and infrastructure for the retired and elderly, which is forecast to be the largest sector increase over the next twenty years (65% increase in age group 65+). House occupation in this group is 1.4 persons per household (pph) not the national average of 2.4 pph on which the Core Strategy figures are based. This further underlines the unreliability of the statistics for housing requirements.

2.8 The Core Strategy provides for at one additional new primary school when the prediction is for a fall of 4.1% in the age range 0-19 (but see Para: 8.2 Education).

2.9 The Local Education Authority have additionally sought the provision of a new secondary school which the Mid Devon planners have stated will require 9 hectares of land outside the EUE to the east of Manley Lane (pers comm. DPD Exhibition meeting 4 Nov 2009) This is land that has already been refused planning permission following the Hartnoll Farm Appeal Oct 2009)

2.9 After completions and consents (as at Oct 2009) and using the Core Strategy provision the new dwellings required reduces to 2,170 dwellings or reduces to 2,470 dwellings using the RSS figures.

2.10 Local Plan allocations (excluding the Eastern Urban Extension) without planning permission exist for 1010 dwellings:

AL/TIV/8 Farleigh Meadows 300AL/TIV/9 Blundells School 200AL/TIV/10 Howden Court 65AL/TIV/11 Belmont Hospital 76AL/TIV/12 St Andrew Street 55AL/TIV/13 William Street 45


6

AL/TIV/14 Palmerston Park 15AL/TIV/15 Blundells Garage 13AL/TIV/16 Roundhill 13AL/TIV/17 Hay Park 13AL/TIV/18 The Avenue 15AL/TIV/21 Tidcombe Hall 200

2.11 Even if the Core Strategy figures were to be believed almost 50% of the provision will be met without the investment needed for an Eastern Urban Extension on the massive scale proposed. Thus, the difference between the RSS figures and the Core Strategy figures already reduces the land required by 12.14 hectares.

2.12 In the opinion of the Group, the forward plans for population growth and development needs are based on inconsistent and unreliable statistics which make the Development Plan unsound.

AMENITIES AND RECREATION

3.0 The plans for amenities and recreation within the DPD do not support the physical, social and green infrastructure required to accommodate the age-related population forecasts up to 2026. The figures, based on the Regional Spatial Strategy, show a 65% increase in population within the 65+ age group with a fall of 4.1% in the younger age groups.

3.1 Within the Eastern Urban Extension (EUE) provision has been made for the construction of a primary school, community hall and facilities for youths and children (AL/TIV/4). There is no mention of facilities for the elderly, who will be in the majority in the proposed area of development. This group will require day care centres, additional hospital provision, sheltered housing, medical support and recreation facilities suitable for their abilities. In the long term phasing, a new GP surgery is planned, but in the short term phasing, no other consideration has been taken for the older age group.

3.2 A site of 2.0 hectares has been allocated for shopping and a community centre which would appear to be an over-estimate. The requirements for retail would be similar to that constructed on the Moorhayes development, such as a ‘one stop shop’, hair dresser, post office and a take-away facility, meeting the day to day needs of the local community. However this should not aim to compete with Tiverton town centre, which must be the hub for the increased population. Sadly at present this is not the case with 10% of the shops empty and an increasing number of charity shops and small food outlets taking priority over encouraging more diverse, interesting and sustainable outlets being attracted to the town.


7

3.3 Sufficient public open spaces and protected environmental areas should be within easy reach of all local residents allowing for a wide mix of recreational and educational use.

TOURISM – CANAL IMPACT AL/TIV/3

4.0 The Grand Western Canal is a designated Country Wildlife Site, and the Group proposal is to retain a substantial buffer zone between it and any development to help retain this status. This area, again proposed as part of the Strategic Green Infrastructure in this document, would be managed for public access and biodiversity (5.22).

4.1 The Grand Western Canal is one the major tourist attractions in Tiverton with visitor numbers increasing year on year. This is evidenced by increasing car parking incomes and feedback from Canal-related businesses, as well as the Ranger Service's own experience. Estimated visitor numbers are 100,000 with a probable 25% of these being non-local.

4.2 It is advertised as being “a quiet and unspoilt historic waterway” as well as being a Nature Reserve since 2005. It won a Green flag Award 2009-10 with the judges feedback stating that they felt the Country Park is “a very attractive facility, well-loved and well used by the local community.” It is one of only fourteen heritage areas across the country to have been included in the Natural England’s Country Park Accreditation Scheme this year. The horse-drawn barge is one of only six left in the UK.

4.3 COR 13: f states “Retain the green setting provided by the steep open hillsides, particularly to the west and south of the town and the historic parkland north of the A361”.

4.4 The revised document has altered the proposed development adjacent to the Canal to a Green Infrastructure. However in order to adhere to the principal expressed above (COR 13:f) the view from the canal should also be taken into consideration and the green setting of this tourist attraction should be retained (Annex: 1 Photo No: 1).

4.5 If development is allowed on the slopes looking north from the Canal the vista from the end of the current development as far as Halberton Road Bridge (approximately two miles) will be of houses on the skyline. As the barge trip turns round at East Manley Bridge the view will no longer be of green hills but of a housing estate.

4.6 The outlook from the Railway Walk will be similarly affected but would be much closer to all users (Annex:1 Photo No: 2). Currently the fields adjacent to the Railway Walk are part of the proposed urban development. Concern about this relating to flood risk and the catchment of the SSSI has been expressed in


8

paragraph 6.0 (Flooding) but the visual impact of houses next to this path should be taken into consideration.

4.7 A comment made by an older couple walking from Tiverton along the Canal tow-path, Sunday 8 November 2009, is relevant in terms of the effect of development in the area: “how much further will we have to travel to reach the countryside without using our car”.

4.8 In conclusion the Canal and Railway Walk are the two main ‘Country’ walks accessible from the Centre of Tiverton. Currently they allow people to retreat from the town and experience the peace and tranquility of the countryside with a choice of a circular route returning along West Manley Lane, an ancient and unspoilt Devon Lane.

TIDCOMBE FEN SSSI: PROTECTION and DRAINAGE

5.0 Tidcombe Fen, 10.7 acres of wetland habitat centred on GR SS 975126, was designated an SSSI in 1988. It occupies the shallow valley of the Ailsa Brook and is a rare example of this type of habitat, containing a wide diversity of plant life. Over one hundred species of flowering plants have been recorded as well as the characteristic lesser pond sedge(Carex acutiformis) tussock sedge (Carex paniculata) marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre) and blunt flowered rush (Juncus subnodulosus).

5.1 Additionally, in recent years, bird and mammal recording has started. Sixty one species of birds have been logged, of which thirty four have bred; seven are on BoCC’s Red List and fifteen on BoCC’s Amber List. Large mammal sightings amount to six species (Annex: No: 2). Two uncommon snail species are on record. At present, there are no available figures for reptiles or insects.

5.2 Ailsa Brook draws its water from the surrounding fields of West Manley and Hartnoll Farm. Most of these fields are laid to pasture, slowing the run off and ensuring a constant flow in the brook throughout the year, an essential requirement to support the particular nature of the Fen.

5.3 The line of the watershed between River Lowman and Ailsa Brook is indicated on (Annex: No: 3) and the shading illustrates the area of the proposed new development that is the catchment area of the Ailsa Brook. This covers 60 hectares some 40% of the total area designated for the development in the EUE.

5.4 AL/TIV/3 EUE Environmental Protection and Green Infrastructure rightly outlines plans for the protection of the fen and its catchment area, which the Group acknowledges. 5.21 states “one of the key issues is the impact of development on the quality and flows of water entering the SSSI and its water levels. Treatment of its catchment area is therefore vital”.


9

5.5 Further, 5.25 states “the provision of Sustainable Urban Drainage usually involves the provision of ponds, swales and other soft areas, which can serve a dual use for public open space and can be incorporated into wildlife networks. A SUDS strategy will need to be worked up as part of the master planning for this site”.

5.6 Given the size of the run-off area from the development, the provision of a SUDS feeding through the SSSI and maintaining flow rates similar to those at present will require extensive work and a large area of the available land in the area of WML. The levels dictate that the bulk of these measures will have to be situated along the Ailsa Brook and to the south of West Manley Lane.

5.7 As has been demonstrated elsewhere (see Para: 6 Flooding) agricultural run-off and flooding occurs further up-stream and as such poses a threat of chemical and vehicular pollution which appears not to be addressed within the plan. Inclusion of the land south of WML within the suggested Local Nature Reserve would ensure that such measures as SUDS would be incorporated into this part of the drainage area and further protect the quality of water entering the Fen, although these protective measures would need to be a priority at the start of the development of the Ailsa Brook catchment area (see Para: 15.0).

5.8 The topography of the area dictates that sewerage from the West Manley area will have to be pumped up to sewers serving Blundell’s Road and beyond or be piped through a new sewer system crossing the SSSI. The siting of either option must pose a serious risk to the Fen particularly if the flooding problem is not properly controlled.

5.9 There is no indication of the scale, complexity or costs involved in these measures; these will impact on the viability of any possible building south of WML.

5.10 Finally, the proximity of the southern border of the SSSI to the Railway Walk at GR 976125 needs to be considered in respect of increasing both noise and light pollution consequent upon up-grading of the path (see Para: 7.0).

5.11 In conclusion, these points make it difficult to accept the soundness of the scheme with a view to the overall protection of the Fen.

FLOODING

6.0 The Core Strategy Policy for Tiverton (COR13) states that it will, “Reduce the risk of flooding”. The issue of increasing frequency and depth of flooding in and to the south of West Manley Lane is of considerable concern to the West Manley Lane Conservation Group (WMLCP) and this submission sets out those concerns.


10

West Manley Lane NGR SS91 97/9812

6.1 The fields either side of WML (See Annex 1 Photo No: 3) slope gently down to the water course of Ailsa brook. In the living memory of the residents it has always been subject to periodic surface water flooding due to run-off and blocked drainage ditches from the surrounding grade 1 and 3 farmland. However, since 2006 the extent of flooding has increased, especially in the following areas of the lane:

North end adjoining Blundell’s Road GR978132 (See Annex 1 Photos No: 4 and 5)

6.2 These floods have been responsible for serious damage to three cars belonging to residents. This degree of surface water flooding has occurred since the conversion of farm land to sports fields for Blundell’s school (GR SS 978128). The height of the sport fields was increased by some 4 feet by the deposit of spoil excavated from a development in Tiverton. This now forms a barrier to the run off from the opposite fields and coupled with the resulting hard compacted ground is now unable to absorb surface water resulting in significant flooding of the lane.From the Land Quality Officer for the Environmental Agency (soils research) 24 Sep 2009:

“Our work has shown that an open loose soil structure can absorb 50 millimetres of rain per hour, but a hard compacted soil can shed up to 90% as surface water run-off”

This situation has been the subject of prolonged e-correspondence with the appropriate DCC department but has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.

WML south – Prowses Cottage and Rosebarn GR984125

6.3 These photographs (Annex: 1 Photos No: 6, 7 and 8) show flooding to the south of the lane between the above properties. This is caused by excessive run-off from higher ground and has been made worse by recent development at Sweet Meadow north of the lane at that point.

6.4 Given that the Environment Agency acknowledges that surface water flooding is notoriously “difficult to predict and pin point” we are deeply concerned that building on the fields surrounding WML (as illustrated in yellow on the map) will greatly magnify this problem. Further, although general reference is made to “provision of sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme” within the LDF there are no details of cost, infrastructure or engineering works necessary to protect this area within the body of the plan.


11

6.5 The Environment Agency Website states: “The FRA (flood risk assessment) must demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere and if possible will reduce the flood risk overall”. Currently, the evidence to support this statement seems to be lacking for this area. Recent evidence of increasing flooding in and to the south of WML has not been factored in to the plan.

Fields south of WML, and between Ailsa Brook and the Railway Walk

6.6 This area has not been assessed for flood risk (see PPS25 Development and flood risk) and is of great concern as the plan clearly shows intent for mixed development within this designated risk area. This challenges the soundness of the LDF which has failed to provide such evidence.

6.7 Ailsa Brook runs though the field (Annex: 1 Photo No: 3) situated between Chapel Anthony Lodge and Rosebarn (GR 982124). At this point it is subject to flooding following heavy rain particularly in the winter months. It then passes through a culvert beneath the original track of the Great Western Railway (GWR) now known as the Railway Walk. This is unstable and, on its south side is collapsing; it frequently blocks with vegetative debris which adds to the flooding of the brook. Telephonic communication with MDDC and DCC (July 2009) suggests that no one authority is either aware of ownership of the culvert or feels liable for its upkeep (pers comm). Specific responsibility must be determined to reduce the flood risk at this point before any development is allowed (Annex: 1 Photos No: 9 and 10).

6.8 Situated in the said field are two industrial brick structures which local history dictates were built at the time of the construction of the GWR branch line. They are said to have housed sumps used to provide drainage and so maintain the integrity of the track from local flooding; this would suggest that historically this land was and continues to be at risk of flooding (Annex: 1 Photos No: 11, 12 and 13).

6.9 The questions of riparian ownership and extraction rights within this specified area has not been fully addressed in the DPD.

Grand Western Canal

6.10 This lies parallel to and above the Railway Walk and lies within the impact zone associated with bank failure. Full assessment of this issue has not been carried out on the area referred to in this submission (Ref: Individual assessment of proposed development allocations, Appendix 7. (Local Development Framework Evidence Base - Environment).


12

South of Copplestone

6.11 The grounds of the property Copplestone and WML have been subjected to flooding due to blockage of Ailsa Brook at this point (GR984125). This has to be rectified periodically by digging drainage ditches on the undeveloped property and copse to the east of the property.

Ailsa Brook and Tidcombe Fen SSSI

6.12 The effect of any proposed development on the water content flowing into Tidcombe fen SSSI is considered in the later paragraph 5.0.

6.13 The choice of this area for use as building land has been proposed without an up-to-date risk assessment on the causes and extent of flooding associated with West Manley Lane and Ailsa Brook.

6.14 It appears to lack the current scientific evidence required to show the impact of flooding, there are no specific plans to alleviate flooding within this area.

6.15 Prior to the flooding to the north of West Manley Lane referred to above, all the local ‘flood’ events have been tolerated by the residents of West Manley Lane. However, any building on the relatively higher ground to the north of the said lane will impact on the area to the south and so increase flooding. For this reason we propose that the area south of the lane is not built upon but that the area is incorporated into the green infrastructure. This will “provide a focus for flood prevention, natural enhancement and biodiversity through the provision of ponds, swales and other soft areas, which can serve as dual use for both public open space” and be maintained in its present form as a wildlife thoroughfare and unpolluted rural footpath.

HEDGEROW AND WILDLIFE – WEST MANLEY LANE

7.0 Both sides of the bank and hedge bordering WML comprise approx 3km of a mature mix of woody species, ground flora and fungi typical of a Devon Bank.

7.1 AL/TIV/3 EUE Environmental Protection and Green Infra structure 5.22 rightly emphasize the importance of species rich hedgerows within the development which the Group thoroughly supports. To that end, it has commissioned its own assessment of the hedgerow of WML and, when the time comes for master-planning, would be happy to discuss its detailed contents.

7.2 In the meantime however, the survey summarizes that the entire hedgerow is deemed “important” under the Hedgerow Regulation 1997, with all the protection that affords. Further, it lists sixty three ground flora species and nineteen woody species; many of the latter will be the subject of forthcoming TPO applications (in keeping with MDDC’s LDF SA/SEA Objectives Env7).


13

7.3 The hedgerow supports significant numbers of bird and mammal species. Of the avifauna, thirty eight species have been recorded using the flora for some activity (e.g. feeding, roosting and nesting) fourteen of which are on BoCC’s Red or Amber Lists. Eleven species of mammal have been recorded associated with the hedgerow.

7.4 Annexes No’s 4 and 5 list birds and mammals recorded in the entire EUE development area, including data specific to WML hedgerow and land to the south.

7.5 Such a hedgerow is clearly covered by the MDDC’s statement of intent. (vs) It is difficult to see how it could retain its current “importance” without being incorporated in an expanded green infrastructure designed to enhance and protect its useful potential for recreation education and environmental well-being.

7.6 At GR 984125, leading off from WML is a privately owned copse, track and old barn, the remains of the earlier settlement and orchards. Although not extensively surveyed, it is home to badgers (Meles meles) fox (Vulpes vulpes) Roe deer (Capriolus capriolus) bats species and other the smaller mammals also noted in the hedgerow survey, as well as bird species typical of this habitat, including roosting tawny owls (of note is that planning permission for the barn has previously been refused).

7.7 In addition to the specifics of the hedgerow, WML forms the northern of four roughly parallel wildlife corridors: Grand Western Canal, Railway Walk, Ailsa Brook and WML with inter-connecting fields, hedges, ditches, bridges and trees.

7.8 The Group proposes that if WML and its southern border were incorporated into this wildlife-rich parallelogram, the land lost to development would equate to 11.4hectares (which can be found in other alternative areas (see Para No: 13.0) but the gain to the environment and so to the people of Tiverton would be immense.

EDUCATION – New Primary School AL/TIV/6

8.0 The plan states the following: “The occupation of no more than 700 dwellings before the transfer of land for the primary school with necessary funding to the Local Education Authority” and that “The provision of local education will be an important factor in the creation of a sustainable community. A primary school should be open before 1000 dwellings are occupied and allowing for 2 years to develop this, the land should be transferred before 700 dwellings are occupied” (5.53 page75).

8.1 The Schools Data Manager at Devon County Council Education Department does not recall this being discussed with him. He commented: “Primary School


14

places in Tiverton are running out with the near completion of the Moorhayes Estate”. We consider this has not been taken into consideration when planning the timing of the new primary school should the new development go ahead.

8.2 Devon County Officials calculate on the basis of 0.25 children per household, 700 houses would generate 175 children needing school places. In order to accommodate these pupils, local schools would have to be asked to change their admission levels and may need extra temporary classrooms. This would need advance planning and would also cause transportation issues from home to school. Any delay in the new school opening (i.e. following occupation of 1000 houses) would mean 250 children needing to find school places.

8.3 The situation in Cullompton is different in that there is a surfeit of primary school places, so it is important to note that the phasing of a new school is after the occupation of only 400 houses (AL/CU/6 6.48 North West Cullompton Phasing).

Education

8.4 The group is committed to the countryside being accessible to children of all ages. It appears that should development go ahead a Primary School will be part of the plan. WML could be used by the pupils for a wide variety of outdoor activities and observations but could also be used by families for walking, running, cycling and dog walking – as it is now. Blundells school use the route as a cross country run for their annual event known as the ‘Russell’.

8.5 Without the definite objective of the lane not being part of the urban development it will be ‘lost’ - as the lanes and hedges on the new Moorhayes Estate have been.

8.6 The Group believes that the importance of the retention of the SSSI and green corridor is that it becomes a huge asset for all pupils studying biodiversity.

HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF WEST MANLEY LANE

9.0 AL/TIV/3 (5.27) draws attention to the “archaeological potential” of the area of the EUD and mentions the two nationally important funerary sites and the need for further assessment. However, in the opinion of the Group not enough attention is given to what is already known of the history of WML area and how this could be incorporated into the amenity and educational value of the Lane.

Pre-History

9.1 Tiverton Archaeological Group (TAG) carried out limited excavations of Pool Anthony Farm fields in the 1980s, particularly above West Manley Farmhouse (GR SS 983127) finding “prodigious amounts of prehistoric churt and flint, the


15

adjacent track was “probably used since Mesolithic times” (pers comm. Tiverton Archaeological Group TAG) although in recent historical times was in use as a drovers road. It runs off from West Manley Lane north towards Post Hill.

9.2 Given its proximity to the other finds at nearby Rowridge and the long funerary barrows referred to above, the immediate vicinity of WML has indeed “archaeological potential” and should be further assessed.

History

9.3 Of the older buildings along the Lane, Pool (or Pole) Anthony Farm is originally of the 16th century although the manor is mentioned at the time of King Edward III. The buildings of Prowses Farm date from the early 17th Century forming part of the old “Manley Tenement”. The original part of Copplestone Farm dates from 1600s.

9.4 The area of West Manley, although the historical boundaries are not clear cut, was part of the Domesday Manor of West Manley (“Manelie” or “Morleia”).

9.5 There is written evidence that one of Tiverton’s pre-reformation chapels was situated along West Manley Lane probably in ‘Underway’ field up until 1544, and possibly used as a dwelling to a later date.

9.6 At Shamels End at its western end WML runs into Manley Lane, the line of the old ‘hundred’ boundary. Here it is believed, the citizens of plague-bound Tiverton picked up the food donated by Halberton.

9.7 A further boundary, that between the ancient portions of Tidcombe and Clare follows the line of the drovers track (v.s.) between Chapel Anthony and Chapel Anthony Lodge down to the Railway Walk and up on towards the Grand Western Canal.

9.8 The said Railway Walk follows the line of the original broad gauge Bristol and Exeter Railway from Tiverton to Tiverton Junction, with its several bridges and associated wayside structures.

9.9 The wealth of interesting historical connections within the Lane suggests to the Group that, in keeping the integrity of WML and its southern border and by incorporating these historical features within the proposed circuit, this would add to the amenity and educational value as well as to the environmental benefits for the people of Tiverton.

TRAFFIC

10.0 West Manley Lane comprises of a single track road (see front cover), approximately 1.5kms in length, leading south then east from Blundell’s Road at


16

GR SS 977131, to GR SS 988126, with the lane centered at National Grid Reference SS91: 981126, it is bordered along the majority of the lane by the original Devon bank. An increase in traffic flow is not achievable without destroying that hedgerow (vi) and realigning the road configuration; it has already been an issue in the refusal of planning permission for use for employment in some buildings in Sweet Meadow (out buildings of the formed West Manley Farm). As is quoted elsewhere the “proposed development would generate an amount of traffic that would be detrimental to the highway network and consequently to the safety of local residents”.

10.1 In requesting that the integrity of the WML and its southern border be retained for recreational, educational and amenity purposes, (see Para: 3.0) the Group takes note of Devon County Council’s remarks in an earlier document (LDF August 2009 page 6.105) in relation to “pedestrian infrastructure”, “widening of NCN3 along the old railway cutting and provision of appropriate lighting” AL/TIV/2 EUE Transport Provision, 5.15 considers cycle and pedestrian links to Railway Walk and the Grand Western Canal without mentioning this track modification or addition of lighting. Whilst agreeing with the proposed increase in provision of cycle paths and public rights of way, the Group feels strongly that this should not be accompanied by “appropriate lighting” or “widening”, resulting in an extension of further light pollution along these rural corridors but that the routes should simply blend in harmoniously with present lines to protect and the enhance the environment and wildlife.

10.2 The group proposes that in order to ensure road safety and to enhance the amenity and environmental aspects of WML, a one-way traffic flow system is introduced.

POLICE AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

11.0 The Allocations and Infrastructure Development Plan does not include the issue of provision of policing for new developments. However, currently under discussion is the possibility of a reduction of funding for frontline policing throughout the Devon and Cornwall Police area over the next 3 years by 14million pounds. Such a reduction in funding will challenge the ‘promotion of social and economic progress’, as claimed in the DPD, as does the statement in MDDC’s, Infrastructure Plan Document Oct 2009 that “no additional requirements have been sought”.

AGRICULTURAL IMPACT

12.0 Referring to the most recent Agricultural Land Classification map (ACL) available, of the 127.4 hectares proposed for residential, commercial and educational development, 116 hectares is designated Grade 1 Agricultural Land. The 11.4 hectares to the south of West Manley Lane is designated Grade 3 by


17

nature of the fact that it is low lying and prone to flooding (see Annex I Photo No: 14).

12.1 There is no reference to DEFRA being involved with the formulation of these plans. It is the Group’s understanding that, from studying Natural England’s TIN049 where a plan “involves the loss of 20 hectares or more of the best and most versatile land” they should be consulted. Further, if the proposals involved “raise interest of more than local importance”, then DEFRA’s advice should be sought. Both these points are relevant to the MDDC’s plans, and should show DEFRAs involvement.

12.2 Planning Policy Statement 7 states: “when preparing policies for LDDs and determining planning applications for development in the countryside, local Planning Authorities should make prudent use of natural resources, ensuring that we use them wisely and efficiently, and in a way that respects the needs of future generations. This means enabling more sustainable consumption and production and using non renewable resources in ways that do not endanger the resource or cause serious damage or pollution”.

12.3 Planning Policy Statement 7 also states that “the presence of best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land of Grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification), should be taken into account along side other sustainability considerations (e.g. bio diversity, the quality and character of the landscape, amenity value or heritage interest, accessibility to infrastructure, work force and markets, maintaining viable communities, and the protection of natural resources, including soil quality) when determining planning applications.

12.4 Worldwide shortages in food production are fast becoming a source of great concern. Grade 1 Agricultural land is a valuable national resource which must be preserved for producing the food to sustain our growing population. Further, the use of even grade 2 and 3 farm land for building is of concern when DEFRA Sept 2009 identified the following:‘To feed a growing global population, it is estimated that global food production will have to increase by some 70% compared to 2005-7 levels by 2050. The world’s ability to grow food depends on global resources - such as soil, energy, water and biodiversity – and we’ll need to expand food production within those environmental limits. In other words, we’ll need to grow more food with fewer resources.

12.5 Photo number 14 (Annex: 1) illustrates the extent of EUE development on predominantly grade 1 farmland.

RE-DESIGNATION OF 11.43 HECTARES TO THE SOUTH OF WEST MANLEY LANE AS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE


18

13.0 The group proposes that the area of land extending to 11.43 hectares to the south of West Manley Lane as shown edged red on the attached plan, should not be developed and should be included as part of the Green Infrastructure Protection (Annex: No: 6).

13.1 This is a low-lying area prone to flooding and which would form an attractive green corridor between the railway walk and West Manley Lane, both of which are popular for walkers, runners and cyclists.

13.2 If this area was to be re-designated for green enhancement, and there was a need to replace the 11.34 hectares, then we would draw the Council and Inspector’s attention to other sites within the Town. The primary replacement site extending to 5 hectares is the land at Tidcombe Hall, which Mid Devon District Council has identified as a contingency housing site (Annex: No: 7).

13.3 Additional reserve “sites” that would more than compensate for the loss of the remaining 6 hectares are available at Howden Court, Farleigh Meadows and Belmont Hospital.

JUNCTION 27 (J27)

14.0 There can be little doubt that employment opportunities within the immediate area of Tiverton are limited. Although a provision for 137,000 square metres for employment in the Eastern Urban Extension (EUE) is contained within the Development Plan, clearly the logistical and financial implications would suggest that such an outcome is many years away.

14.1 However, land at J27 is currently in demand, presently available and requiring little or no public funding. It provides potential business enterprises with the required motorway communication and the means to construct modern facilities, whilst bus, train, bicycle and road transport facilities for employers already exist. In this age, the concept of “sustainability” meaning the ability to ‘walk to work’ is surely unrealistic for the majority. Of the sixty per cent of employees currently ‘out-commuting’ from Tiverton many are already passing through J 27 by one means or another.

14.2 Opening up this land at J27 would give planners the scope to ensure that any industrial units in the EUE were smaller but with higher employment numbers. It would have the added advantage of reducing the number of large HGVs needing to visit the EUE units.

14.3 Providing for smaller local employers would also avoid the volatility in the labour market created by large footloose multinational companies, as has been demonstrated by factory closures in Plymouth and Torquay during the current recession, and in Tiverton’s recent past ‘Reuters’ and ‘Two Sisters’.


19

14.4 In 2006 the Secretary of State was unable to sanction the use of land for business development at J27 for technical reasons within the changing planning rules; the concept was not, as has been believed, ruled out. Thus if the MDDC were to seek an addendum to its current plan and re-address the issue of the lack of employment land, then J27, like other similar areas within the M5 corridor, would provide a quick but long term answer to chronic lack of employment potential.

14.5 If this was achieved, whilst it would not take away the need for development in the EUE, the amount of land required for seemingly inappropriate industrial development within this semi-rural setting, would be reduced. At the same time this would decrease the total amount of land needed for housing and associated amenities and allow for a more sensitive approach to planning.

14.6 It is the wish of this group that MDDC be persuaded to take the necessary steps to put land for development at J27 back on the agenda.

EASTERN URBAN EXTENSION PHASING and FUNDING

15.0 Initial phasing of any development of the EUE will need to provide suitable access to the sites. The decision on appeal by the Inspectorate (30.10.09), to refuse further development at Hartnoll Farm on the grounds that the additional traffic generated would not be acceptable on the roads serving it, involves the same roads that serve the EUE area i.e. Blundells Road and the road through Halberton Village. The vehicle movements created by the development and ongoing use of the EUE will be far in excess of those created by the Hartnoll proposal.

15.1 This suggests that alternative routes on to the site will need to be provided before any development takes place. As the EUE indicates these routes will be linked to the existing road network as indicated in AL/TIV/2. 5.10 “The provision of appropriate transport infrastructure is a key requirement of this development, minimising impact on adjoining uses and promoting sustainable development”. For this to be provided before any dwellings are constructed or occupied will require significant financing which is not made clear in the DPD.

15.2 5.11 “A direct access to the A361 will ensure that the site is both attractive for employment growth, and minimises the impact of traffic on the surrounding areas. As accelerated growth in employment creation is a key plank of the Core Strategy-“and 5.12 “The Council assumes that the link will be funded entirely by the development”. This suggests that the infrastructure for industrial development will be close to the A361 and will need to be in place prior to the start of any housing development in order to give vehicle access to the housing sites beyond. Potential developers are unlikely to fund these very high costs (ref 5.12) long before they see any return from housing.


20

15.3 5.19 Also suggests that the Highways Agency may require contributions to works at Junction 27 if necessary.

15.4 An estimate of £120 million has been given for the infrastructure for the area over the period with a figure of £60 million (3.6) for the EUE (£35 million to be raised by a Community Infrastructure Levy). From this, around £20million will be required for the links/junctions on to the existing road network.

15.5 AL/TIV/6 c “The occupation of no more than 200 dwellings and 10,000sqm employment floor space before the opening of either the A361 Junction and or the Heathcoat Way Link. And at h “the occupation if no more than 1000 dwellings before the opening of both the A361Junction and the Heathcoat Way Link”. The building of 1,000 new dwellings (30% of the planned number of new dwellings) and ten hectares of serviced employment before any major infrastructure is required to be built and paid for by the developers appears unsound. How can this be achieved without construction traffic using Blundells Road and Halberton Village Road? The conclusion of the inspector on turning down the Hartnoll Farm Appeal (October 2009) has relevance here: “the proposed development could potentially generate an amount of traffic that would be detrimental to the highway network and consequently to the safety of local residents “. Moreover the statement h appears to contradict the details in paragraph 5.13 with reference to site access.

15.6 In a report to the MDDC Planning Committee on 8 April 2009, the Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that “further work on the infrastructure requirement, including timing and cost is required in order to ensure that proposals lead to the creation of a sustainable community……the need to ensure that the requirements are not so onerous as to make the proposal economically unviable…..the shortage of evidence and uncertainty this implies could lead to the DPD being considered unsound”.

15.7 This suggests to the group that it was already being anticipated by MDDC that the DPD was unsound and nothing since 8 April 2009 has changed to increase the soundness, except the extension of phasing in an attempt to make the EUE stack up financially.

15.8 As is argued under (Para 8.4 Education) “the occupation of 700 dwellings before the transfer of land for the primary school with necessary funding to the LEA” misses the point that the primary school places are required now not after the 700 homes are built.

Phasing and the protection of Tidcombe Fen SSSI


21

15.9 AL/TIV/6 b “The occupation of no more than 100 dwellings before the transfer of the Green Infrastructure west of Pool Anthony Bridge to the local authority with necessary funding” and e “The occupation of no more than 400 dwellings before the transfer of the Green Infrastructure between Pool Anthony Bridge and Manley Railway Bridge with necessary funding”.

15.10 If, as argued above, the A361 Junction and the Heathcoat Way Link are the required means of access to the EUE, then development will have to commence in that area and gradually work southward on the site as the infrastructure progressed, b and e above would then not be required until much later in the development (i.e. when the Ailsa Brook catchment area is reached) and would impose an unnecessary burden on the developer at an early stage.

15.11 d “The provision of affordable housing will not be required until after the 400th dwelling”; this appears to contradict AL/DE/5 the inclusive design and layout strategy.

15.12 The document, AL/TIV/7 5.56, suggests a future master plan will set out details and adopt a “Supplementary Planning Document”. This will be framed and decisions and costings made based upon the requirements set out in the Development Plan Document and it is essential that developers and all involved have clear parameters set prior to taking on the task. For this reason The DPD must be clear, precise and based on well researched accurate information. In many instances this is not so and therefore the Group challenges the soundness of the plan on this matter.

Funding

15.13 The Infrastructure Plan produced by MDDC has not been widely circulated and not made easily available to the public. However, it is this document only that identifies how the Eastern Urban Extension will be funded in any sort of detail.It is clear that funding rests largely on the implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy which is contained in the Planning Act 2008 and has yet to be published and maybe further delayed.

15.14 MDDC has therefore provided a backup plan in the event that the Infrastructure Levy is not implemented in Mid Devon.

15.16 This backup plan is provided in Table 13 of the Infrastructure Plan and makes no sense when the table is headed ‘Provision of Infrastructure with Community Infrastructure Levy’.

15.17 The EUE access work (new junction on the A361, new access to Heathcote Way and traffic calming measures) has been estimated at £20 million, 100% of which is expected to come from developers. MDDC already recognizes that the high cost of this access could undermine the viability of the development


22

and states that the council will seek external funding to support the development. Fund planning on this scale is central to the soundness of the EUE and yet no explanation of where the shortfall will be sourced is presented. In the current economic climate of austerity and prudence, this somewhat cavalier attitude to what is a major aspect of the EUE, namely transport, exposes the DPD as financially unsound.

CONCLUSION

16.0 The aim of this submission is to:

- Question the soundness of the DPD

- Propose that WML be excluded from the area of mixed use development.

16.1 WMLCG strongly questions the soundness of the DPD in relation to the Eastern Urban Extension and believes that the Mid Devon Allocations and Infrastructure Document is flawed in its treatment of housing and employment needs and predictions, infrastructure phasing and financial delivery.

16.2 If the inspector considers that there is merit in adopting the Eastern Urban Extension in full or in part, then WMLCG requests that the land to the south of West Manley Lane (11.4 hectares) is removed from the Mixed Used identified in yellow on the development map and for the reasons given (Hedgerow assessment, wildlife, SSSI protection, flooding, transport, education, recreation, history and traffic issues) is returned to Green Infrastructure thus ensuring the existence of a protected green corridor of recreation within a larger Countryside Park for future generations.

November 2009

ANNEX: 1 PHOTOGRAPHS


23

1. View from Canal of WML – all fields beyond the near tree line will be covered with buildings

2. View from

Railway walk of WML – all fields to be covered by buildings

3. Arial view showing Ailsa brook and part of WML and Railway walk


24

4. Floods WML Blundells Rd end Dec 2008 (1)

5. Floods WML Blundells Rd end Dec 2008 (2)


25

6. Floods West Manley Lane -between properties Prowses & RosebarnDec 2008

7. Floods West Manley Lane -east of Rosebarn Oct 2009 (1)


26

8. Floods West Manley Lane – east of Rosebarn Oct 2009 (2)


27

9. Floods Ailsa Brook - south of WML - culvert

10. Floods Ailsa Brook - south of WML - culvert


28

11. Floods fields and Ailsa Brook - south of WML - Railway walk Dec 08

12. Floods fields and Ailsa Brook - south of WML - Railway walk


29

13. Floods Underway field – south of WML - Railway walk west of culvert


30

14. Aerial photo of extent of development of (mainly) grade 1 farmland


Documents

Final Group Submission · Submission 1 Contents page 2 Annexes page 3 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Population Demographics and Projections 4 3.0 Amenities and Recreation 6 4.0 Tourism and