Guidance for Comments
Thank you for commenting on the draft Neighbourhood Plan. In making your comment, we would be grateful if you could follow these guidelines:
- Leave your name and email address so we can respond to you directly if necessary, as well as publishing our response alongside your comments on the website.
- Please be explicit in terms of which paragraph or section numbers of the draft plan your comments refer to.
- The comments will be moderated before publication on the website to exclude any comments that might be termed abusive or derogatory to individuals.
During the Regulation 14 Consultation we are legally obliged to request comments from a number of other organisations and individuals as well as residents.
These include statutory bodies such as WDBC, Historic England etc; landowners/agents and local organisations. Mr Persse was on that list. A number of these have responded and their responses will be included in the overall response schedule attached to the Consultancy Statement – some of these responses have been by email and have not been put on the website.
Once we have considered all the comments we will publish the full schedule, on the website, which will include our own responses including any changes to the Regulation 14 Plan. There will then be a further opportunity for comments at the Regulation 16 Consultancy stage.
Fantastic effort by all concerned in producing the MACK Plan, a lot of work, commitment, thought and research has been put to this document that gives a true reflection of the people that live in the villages and surrounding MACK Plan area and how they would like to see it developed in the future.
I do hope that WDBC planning department do take time to refer to this document before considering ALL planning applications now and in the future or the public money that funded this will have been wasted along with everybody’s time and efforts.
This plan has been put together by people who genuinely are passionate and interested about the area they live in and not someone in it for their individual gains or their clients. Nor of someone working for WDBC planning dept. that has no interest in our local area who appears happy to pass any planning applications. Well done again to those involved, great effort and lets hope the plan is used as it was intended.
well done Richard Allen and team for the mack plan ..having served on the parish council I get what’s gone on to get this done…
sadly wdbc dragged their heels getting mack plan over the line .
maybe they will redeem themselves by upholding what the village wants…
Mr persse has a lot to say about our village needs…doesn’t even live here..
only in it for money…
Firstly we would like to thank the writers of the MACK plan, it is very well thought out and considered.
As with other commenter’s we generally support and agree with the conclusions deduced from the plan. For us the important factors are: –
Lack of Local Green Space 4.4.1
This year has really highlighted the lack of accessible green fields with public access in village centres. We have been encouraged to stay local and although we have wonderful access to footpaths and countryside it is sometimes important to just have a field to kick a ball around or to just run, especially for small children.
Lack of Public Transport 5.2.4.3
We agree with the comments made about the lack of public transport running through the village of Chillaton. Without this it would be very hard to attract lots more residents to the village.
Road Safety 5.6.0.3
We agree with the comments here about Chillaton’s lack of roadside footpaths (especially needed for children walking into the centre for buses to school, this feels very unsafe). We would like to make the additional comment about the traffic coming in and out on the Lifton road. Due to the straight nature of the section of road by Marlow crescent, that has full view of the derestricted speed sign, cars are often speeding well in excess of 30mph out of the village. A lot of people use this section of road to walk dogs and walk children to into the village, making this extremely hazardous. We would suggest moving the 30mph sign to the other side of Sunway, with other traffic calming measures to firstly allow time for traffic to slow before getting to the village, but secondly, the derestricted sign would not be visible to motorists until they are truly out of the village.
C Site B Between Marlow Crescent and Sunway
We concur with the plan and would not support development of size in this location (or any other location in Chillaton). As stated above, without substantial investment in the village i.e. improved footpaths, road safety, transport links, return of a shop, post office and pub, then we don’t feel additional houses would add anything too the village except to take away it’s countryside feel.
We obviously have objections to this precise location, as our current uninterrupted views of the countryside would be disturbed and would significantly devalue our home.
I have lived in Chillaton for many years and have witnessed the loss of all our local services. I understand therefore why we have been classed as non sustainable. I have read and agree with the MACK Plans findings however, I would like to point out that there is a NHS dentist at Kilworthy Park in Tavistock which is nearer than stated in the plan.
Congratulations to the MACK plan team for a thorough and well considered document.
As a whole I agree with its findings and considerations.
I do however find it disheartening when Chillaton is discribed as ‘not sustainable’ as although it may not be in the development sense it is sustainable to the many people of whom have made their home here. Going forward maybe some of the issues raised ie road safety, community facilities etc could be addressed within a focus group.
We would like to thank all concerned for the careful, thoughtful, inclusive and rigorous process that has been followed in the formulation of the MACK Plan. We also appreciate the extensive public consultation that has taken place. We strongly support the idea of a Local Plan and hope that the future development of all of our communities is informed and directed by the Plan.
It is also good to see the social, environmental and historical assets of our communities recorded in one document.
We would like to make the following comments:
Housing development (7.2)
We strongly support the idea of building more affordable, sustainable housing in Milton Abbot (Policy 6.1; 6.5), in order to maintain it as a sustainable village. We would also like to see support for the existing, historic, village hall, a village shop and post office, children’s play facilities and designated green spaces alongside this development.
However, we feel that Chillaton should also be considered as a potentially sustainable village, since, until recently, it also had a pub, Post Office and village shop. Milton Abbot’s pub is now under threat, it only has a visiting (but nonetheless brilliant!) Post Office and has also lost its village shop. Could the two communities not continue to develop in tandem, with new housing developed sensitively in both, along with the associated improvements in community facilities and local transport connections that should accompany them?
We were very pleased to see that an independent assessment has been made of all of the possible sites for housing development and acknowledge the difficulty of identifying areas that will suit everyone in the community.
However, the identification of a single site for all 20 of the houses that the village is required to accommodate conflicts with the views expressed by most residents (7.1.0.5). We would prefer to see a number of smaller developments integrated into the village.
We acknowledge the merits of Site E for development but would like to point out that Site B, identified as unused “old allotments” in the Plan, comprises allotments that have been in constant use, rented by local residents, for at least the last 25 and possibly, the last 100, years. They were originally associated with the now Grade II listed, Lutyens-designed estate houses in The Parade and include a group of original former pig sties. As such, they form part of the Duke of Bedford “model village” design, based around Venn Hill and The Parade. We would like to see them maintained in association with these listed buildings and the wider Conservation Area. They also have considerable wildlife value, including a number of Devon hedges and mature trees, which represent an important habitat for owls, bats and many other species. Rather than being built upon, in association with Site E, could site B be considered a designated Local Green Space for the village, which is argued for throughout the Plan and strongly supported by the community (4.4.2.)?
We agree that Site D is clearly unsuitable for housing development and support the inclusion of statements of this unsuitability in the MACK Plan.
Sites A and C are also considered unsuitable for housing development but either of these sites could also be considered ideal to be designated a Local Green Space. They both fit the criteria (4.4) of being in close proximity to the village, near to areas of family housing and both have local and historical significance, as set out in their descriptors in the plan. Both may also be important sites for wildlife.
Rights of way
We fully support the idea of promoting and improving rights of way in and around our communities (Community Action 4-2). As part of this assessment, could particular focus be given to the state of the path between Milton Abbot village and the cricket field?
Employment (5.2.3)
JLP strategic objective S09 calls for the development of new local jobs as well as homes. Could consideration of the need for small scale, sustainable and flexible business premises be included in the Plan? Spaces for local micro-businesses to expand and new ones to start would be invaluable. This could include consideration of the need for offices, meeting rooms, workshops, storage etc., such as the new units on the Launceston/Callington road junction, for example.
Community Facilities (5.4)
Would it be worth considering the development of The Edgcumbe Arms as a multi-purpose community facility (something like the White Hart, in Chilsworthy), incorporating a cafe, shop, meeting rooms, etc.? It also has some parking space.
Residential parking (5.7)
We definitely agree with the need to create additional parking spaces in Milton Abbot and could envisage something like the village car park in Luckett. Could Sites C or F be available for this?
Mr Persses’s comments regarding the AECOM site assessments being ‘fundamentally unsound‘ are insulting after all the hard work undertaken to complete these UNBIASED assessments. If a paid agent’s comments regarding a live planning application on part of site D are to be taken seriously then so too should all the 170 plus cogent objections from the people of Milton Abbot, who should have a say as to where and what type of housing is acceptable in Milton Abbot.
The MACK Plan document and associated work that has gone into it, is indeed a thorough document. Well done to all who were a part of it’s creation and thank you for your time and efforts for doing so.
I completely agree with all developments meeting environmentally friendly and sustainable standards, using local services wherever possible.
Future builds should be built to the area needs not (just) for profits and I think there are various clauses within the document, that align with that.
I do have a concern that future developments add a further drain to already oversubscribed local services e.g. Dr’s and Dentists (as well as infrastructure). But believe that the MACK plan addresses this in several points, where any future development should also bring some tangible return to the local community.
I am particularly in favour of clause 6.4.0.4 where Class Q developments are considered part of new housing stock and count towards the new building target for 2014-2034.
Whilst its a shame that at present there seems no obvious way to have some community facility e.g. local shop for Chillaton specifically, if this MACK plan is voted into legislation, then it helps to ensure a higher chance of this becoming a reality and benefit to the local community, where presently this seems unlikely.
One final point from myself regards the Neighbourhood Planning Policies.
We have a great opportunity here to have at least some control over our local area developments and if voted through, would be a great and utter shame if we have no individuals (or individuals not willing) to proactively drive and ensure these policies are implemented and adhered to.
With absolutely no reflection on the current team; but a concern and suggestion I wanted to put forwards (just from various experiences I’ve had working as part of large projects in my job), I think it’s worth keeping on the table to discuss/review the team and everyone’s eagerness to continue participation at regular intervals, to ensure we have a community team on board who progressively (& willingly) drive these actions forwards.
I’d like to request from the moderators of this comment section that the comment of Mr E Persse is either removed or subject to annotation that includes a declaration/conflict of interest. The cause of this is well documented in the comments made since his submission. Thank you.
Why is it appropriate that a comment is posted by the agent (Mr E Persse) who has been paid to submit the live planning application at Milton Abbot Site D – the agents company being EJFP Planning Ltd, based in Tavistock. I believe that he lives in Tavistock and the applicant lives in Bere Alston, neither being residents to the MACK area of Milton Abbot, Chillaton or Kelly. This needs noting having been posted so close to the end date for comments.
The MACK plan is a comprehensive and detailed piece of work, well done to the team involved. I am broadly in agreement with it, although feel it is a shame that Chillaton is deemed unsustainable in relation to new properties. We have over recent years lost our shop and pub and thus the heart of the village. It is disappointing that this could not be addressed by some new supportive development.
This response relates to the assessment of sites MA Site D, MA Site E and MA Site F and the apparent anomalies in the assessments and conclusions reached concerning the sites. In addition, the lack of consultation with the landowner/agent about site D and a lack of recognition of the advanced state of the planning application for part of site D. The professional consultation responses for the application relating to landscape highways and heritage matters have not been considered. There is no assessment of this oven-ready part of site D in the site assessment. In addition, important information relating to the water supply has been ignored and appears to be misrepresented in the site assessment. The site assessment finds that site E is suitable for development despite the anomalies in the individual assessment of the sites listed above. Accordingly, it is considered that the AECOM site assessment is fundamentally unsound for the reasons set out below.
All three sites will be visible to a certain degree from the Tamar Valley AONB that said site E is the closest. Sites D and F both have intervening buildings and structures between the AONB boundary and the site boundary. This is important because when it comes to the assessment of sensitivity in terms of visual amenity yet the site assessment lists site E as having a medium sensitivity and sites D and F as having high sensitivity, this is despite the fact that there are intervening buildings between the AONB and the sites at D and F. In terms of site D and the area which is subject to the current planning application, this part of the site is well related to existing development (with development on three sides), no assessment has been made of the lower section of this site in the AECOM site assessments despite the known existence of the planning application. In the application proposal, the Council’s landscape officer has confirmed that five dwellings will not give rise to any landscape impact concerns. This is in direct conflict with the conclusions reached in the AECOM assessment.
In terms of the sensitivity of the landscape, the AECOM assessment has stated that sites D and F have a medium sensitivity while site E has a low sensitivity. However, what is of concern is the conclusions that are reached in relation to hedgerows and trees – in relation to site E, it states ‘there are trees and hedgerows located along the site boundaries that can be accommodated within the design of new development areas’. Yet, in relation to sites D and F, it states ‘there are trees and hedgerows along the site boundaries which are susceptible to development but could potentially be incorporated (my emphasis) into the design of new development areas’. Why the difference between the assessment of trees and hedgerows in relation to the sites. It appears that the only reason for the difference is to move sites D and F into the medium sensitivity category. There appears to be no planning or landscape reason for arriving at the different conclusions for sites D and F compared to site E. Please see the point above in relation to the Council’s landscape officer’s comments for the planning application.
There are similar concerns about the harm to designated heritage assets and setting, it is acknowledged that sites D and F share a boundary with the conservation area, and site E does not. However, to say that sites D and F will impact three nationally designated listed buildings, including the grade 1 listed church, and that site E will have limited or no impact is fundamentally incorrect. When viewed from the west, Site E will sit directly in front of the grade 1 listed church and, as such, will have an impact. Therefore the conclusion that has been reached in relation to site E must be in question. In addition, when considering the application site in site D, the associated historic impact assessment has concluded that the proposal for five dwellings will be acceptable.
Specifically, concerning the assessment of site D, the concerns raised regarding the flooding matters are unfounded. It is not clear from the documents where the concerns regarding the flooding came from? However, this would have been clarified had AECOM spoken with the landowner or agent in order to establish the cause of the flooding. The reason for the flooding was a blocked covert. Once the blockage (a plastic bag) was removed, the flooding stopped, and there have been no further incidents. Thus, it is considered that the flooding concerns set out in the assessment are unfounded and should not have a bearing on the site assessment.
In terms of the freshwater springs, these provide water to the properties in Edgecumbe Terrace, at least two of which are on mains water. A report dealing with the spring has been included with the application for part of the site. It is noted that there has been no reference to this report in the AECOM site assessment. This is considered to be a limitation of the site assessment for site D.
In terms of access into the site, the assessment conclusions are again challenged on the basis that the local highways authority in considering the planning application for five dwellings, has concluded that the proposed access is acceptable. Again had the assessors referred to the application, they may well have arrived at a different conclusion, certainly for part of the site.
In terms of the general comments the plan states at paragraph 6.5.0.3 that The continuation of development through small cluster developments (4 or 5 houses)… are considered favourably. The development of sites D and F would meet with the aspiration set out in paragraph 6.5.0.3. Whereas the development of site E does not.
It is considered, therefore, that the proposed allocation of land in Milton Abbot is based upon site assessments that have not been objectively carried out, in that they have failed to take into account publicly available information which counters the conclusions particularly in relation to site D. Some of the conclusions that have been reached in the site assessment are illogical and do not appear to follow the same criteria from site to site. Thus resulting in hard to follow conclusions. The result of which it is considered that the basis for the site allocations is unsound.
For clarity these comments are provided by the agent of a live planning application on MA Site D. The agent (EJFP Planning Ltd) resides in Tavistock and the applicants in Bere Alston.
MACK Plan = Milton Abbot, Chillaton and Kelly Neighbourhood Plan.
Precisely when did you move into the area? Bannawell street isn’t part of the plan, it’s clear you are replying to bolster your clients application!
This comment has been posted by the agent who has been paid to submit the live planning application at Milton Abbot Site D – the agents company being EJFP Planning Ltd, based in Tavistock. I believe that he lives in Tavistock and the applicant lives in Bere Alston, neither being residents to the MACK area of Milton Abbot, Chillaton or Kelly. This needs noting having been posted so close to the end date for comments.
I can’t give this comment any credence as you were not invited to participate in the MACK plan by virtue of you being a non-resident of the MACK plan areas. Nor have you made a declaration of interest in that you are financially involved with a current pending planning application that DOES sit within the MACK plan. Therefore your comment has limited if any validity or value. It certainly lacks integrity. This is not the forum to air your grievance.
MACK Plan = Milton Abbot, Chillaton and Kelly Neighbourhood Plan. (NOT Tavistock or Bere Alston)
MACK Plan:
It is shame that these comments have been provided purely in the interests of personal gain from those outside of this community.
Mr Persses’s comments regarding the AECOM site assessments being ‘fundamentally unsound‘ are insulting after all the hard work undertaken to complete these UNBIASED assessments. If a paid agent’s comments regarding a live planning application on part of site D are to be taken seriously then so too should all the 170 plus cogent objections from the people of Milton Abbot, who should have a say as to where and what type of housing is acceptable in Milton Abbot.
I’m quite shocked how ‘low some will go’
Mr Persse is a former WDBC planning officer now paid to assist applicants to circumvent/navigate planning law. Although not living, nor ever lived in the Mack area, he now decides he has a right to comment on a neighbourhood plan where monetary gain is his ONLY interest. Along with a sudden qualification in flooding and heritage, the lack of concern for protecting and enhancing the village and its residents speak volumes.
Please amend his post to show he’s most certainly a party with a vested financial interest and a desperate attempt to at least win an occasional application on behalf of a poorly advised client
This guy is the agent for two planning applications?
How is that right?
He doesn’t live in the area either
His comments show clear bias and an attempt to skew a fair and open process. Funny that!!
It was my understanding that “Our Neighborhood Plan” was for us, the Communities of Milton Abbot, Chillaton and Kelly to have the chance to be involved in the decisions which affect us, the members of our communities where we live and have lived for many years.
It seems greatly inappropriate, immoral and surly somewhat unprofessional for Mr E Persse of EJFP Limited to be commenting here on our communities MACK Plan.
This implies that anyone and his dog, from any part of the country, can comment and try to impose their will on our village’s future.
I would like to say again that the Plan has been painstakingly put together from expert advice and even more importantly by using “credible, local knowledge”. Taking into consideration the views, thoughts and working knowledge of people who do have a vested interest in this community.
I totally agree with the MACK Plan’s assessment of each site. The Plan and it’s conclusions successfully retains the character of Milton Abbot. The plan delivers by being sympathetic to the existing layout of the village without the need to build above the village on existing green field sites.
There is so much support for this plan, I really appreciate all the hard work which has gone into putting it together for us, the community. I am grateful that we have had this opportunity to let our thoughts be known. Thank you.
Please note, I strongly object to Mr E Persse of EJFP Planning Limited, using this facility to further his business interest in Milton Abbot. I was not aware that anyone other than the residents of Milton Abbot, Chillaton and Kelly had been invited to comment on our Neighborhood Plan!
During the Regulation 14 Consultation we are legally obliged to request comments from a number of other organisations and individuals as well as residents.
These include statutory bodies such as WDBC, Historic England etc; landowners/agents and local organisations. Mr Persse was on that list. A number of these have responded and their responses will be included in the overall response schedule attached to the Consultancy Statement – some of these responses have been by email and have not been put on the website.
Once we have considered all the comments we will publish the full schedule, on the website, which will include our own responses including any changes to the Regulation 14 Plan. There will then be a further opportunity for comments at the Regulation 16 Consultancy stage.
C Site B – Between Marlowe Crescent and Sunway
One of the primary purposes of the Mack plan, as set out in the forward to the plan, is to
The confirmation that site B is not appropriate as a Local Green Space is supported.
In terms of the comments made concerning infrastructure and services, it is considered an additional housing in Chillaton will help create a mass of the population that would support the reintroduction of the services which have been lost over time, including a village shop and pub. It is considered that the primary purpose of the plan is to create sustainable settlements, and it is considered that housing growth will assist in achieving that aim. Furthermore, it should be noted that the NPPF supports the growth of smaller villages Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. The above advice would support the development of site B.
The neighbourhood plan looks favourably on developing smaller clusters of housing (paragraph 6.5.0.3), and the development of site B falls within that aspiration.
The comments in paragraph 7.1.0.2 are particularly pertinent to the consideration of the suitability of site B, stating that However, potential development in the village may be seen in conjunction with JLP Policy TTV2, which seeks to enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, including through, where appropriate, potentially supporting local services and facilities. The development of sites E would help support local services and facilities to return to the village.
The general thrust of the site assessment and the support for site B is welcome. The site can provide a mix of affordable and open market housing, and any additional community benefits are deemed necessary.
It is suggested that the Mack plan reassess the distribution of housing to have a split between Milton Abbot and Chillaton in order to provide a more holistic pattern of growth across the plan area and support sustainable growth in Chillaton.
It might be helpful if I put Mr Gill’s concerns over residents’ lack of awareness of his proposals for land to the east of Marlow Crescent, Chillaton into context, by quoting from the email I sent him when originally addressing this issue. This occurred after the publication of the residents’ questionnaire in 2017 and I said:
The survey was only the latest stage of NDP consultation and others will follow, including the opportunity for residents to consider whatever information the owners of potential development sites wish to put forward. With a questionnaire already running to 20 pages and eight potential sites to consider, to have included specific proposals for each one would have made the survey impracticable and I’m sure you will appreciate the need to have treated each site in the same way.
The eight sites referred to were those identified by the Borough Council in an earlier ‘Call for land’ and included Mr Gill’s. However, as I said in my email to Mr Gill:
Although the Borough Council carried out the ‘Call for land’ exercise, it will not provide contact information regarding the landowners concerned, because of the Data Protection Act. I am therefore in the process of finding the owners of all the sites concerned and providing them with the information I have sent you, as I already had your details. Landowners will then have the opportunity to put forward proposals, should they so wish, having regard to the outcome of the survey.
No specific details of the further consultation process have yet been considered by the MACKPLan team, but my expectation is that there will be public meetings to facilitate this in both Chillaton and Milton Abbot. Indeed, on page 4 of the survey review, it states that ‘Further consultation will now take place with regard to specific sites’. I hope that this addresses your main concern.
Having produced the questionnaire and reported on the analysis of its results, I was no longer involved with MACK plan. A new team was formed with a stronger representation from Milton Abbot, which made sense, given the initial focus on that village by the Borough Council as a source of new homes. Notwithstanding that, the team quite rightly decided to make a fresh ‘Call for Land’ and to include any sites in the whole of the Plan area in the independent assessment they commissioned, including Mr Gill’s.
In a MACK plan newsletter dated March 2020 it was said:
All sites will be discussed with the Parish Council and WDBC and then reviewed at a meeting of local residents prior to an eventual referendum on the whole Neighbourhood Plan.
Of course, Covid 19 has prevented such meetings from being held.
Comments on Mackplan.The plan is a comprehensive document ,reflecting the needs of the area and taking into account the future housing and community needs of the local villages and hamlets whist respecting the particular features of the landscape and environment .I am pleased that it has been thoroughly researched and subject to independent assessment.It provides a welcome framework for future planning and hopefully secures the voice of the community in influencing future developments.As local residents my wife and I support the plan.
Regulation 14 Comments.
In addition to achieving a sustainable development solution the two most identified key objectives are to secure affordable housing to meet local needs and also securing community facilities.
There is only one submitted site which provides both of these requirements , that is C Site A: Land East of Marlow Crescent. This proposal includes a huge 66% affordable housing ratio { 9 dwellings of which 6 would be affordable } together with a large piece of land to be given over to the Parish Council to provide community facilities such as play areas etc.
These benefits would be delivered by a unilateral undertaking by a philanthropic landowner. Strangely the report fails to even discuss the merits of these material planning considerations.
A further key aspiration of the residents is to have smaller sites . You explain that this is not possible as , quite rightly , in order to demand affordable housing and community infrastructure from developers then the trigger point for this is 10 dwellings . However , given the above mentioned site is providing these benefits it would allow the remaining 11 dwellings required to be accommodated on 3/4 sites of 2/3 dwellings – thus meeting the aspirations of residents. Furthermore , unlike the proposed site east of Marlow Crescent, it is by no means an absolute given that the proposed sites for development in Milton Abbott will result in the affordable housing and community infrastructure. Such can be legitimately requested but , in my many years of trying to negotiate such benefits on sites of 10 or more dwellings , key issues of viability are raised and quite often the development fails to proceed .
In the reports discussion on this matter no mention is made of this possible alternative strategy of securing the benefits on one site by unilateral undertaking .
As you will know , the above proposal was submitted in 2015 and it was later admitted { in an email exchange with Mr . Howard Ashbridge } that the benefits of the affordable housing and community facilities had not been made known to the residents. Subequently the Mackplan team have informed me that all of details of the scheme would be made known to the residents and to AECOM.
I’m afraid this is difficult to believe given there is no discussion within the document on these matters . Even within the brief Site Assessment there is no mention of the land to be given over for community facilities. Given it is a key objective of the NP to achieve such it is difficult to understand why there is no mention of this key material consideration.
It is also puzzling that as this site is 1.4ha in size , it is not considered under the ‘larger sites’ summary.
It is noted that Milton Abbott has slightly more facilities than Chillaton . However the NPPF points out that small settlements can provide ‘clusters’ where development in one village can support facilities in another . Chillaton is therefore a suitable candidate for some development and would not be regarded as unsustainable. Indeed the report seems to acknowledge this general point by expressing some possible support for the site between Sunwaye and Marlow Crescent .
However , given the principle of development in Chillaton is not completely dismissed , it is highly questionable as to why any planning professional would advocate and perpetrate the extension of ‘ribbon development ‘ – a form of development which has been vilified by the planning profession for several decades.
The site east of Marlow Crescent has been previously considered by a government Planning Inspector and found to be ‘ well located to the existing development’ and that ‘ the flood plain can be safeguarded ‘. Indeed as I have pointed out in my previous detailed submissions the Planning Inspector found no physical constraints to development on the site including and affect on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
Clearly you disagree with the findings of a government appointed Planning Inspector – yet there is no evidence , or even discussion , as to why this is so. The Inspectors comments cannot simply be ignored.
The dwellings are located well away from the flood plain and have no adverse affect on ecology , heritage , archaeology or landscape [ all of which having been previously discussed – and documented – as part of a previous Public Inquiry]. Furthermore , the distance from dwellings in Marlow Crescent is almost twice that of recommended development standards and with windows to habitable rooms facing away from the existing dwellings.
Overall , it is considered not merely disappointing but also highly suspicious as to how key material planning factors have not been mentioned or discussed within the report . Even if you considered other factors to outweigh the proposed benefits they should at least have been discussed within the report – particularly given these key benefits of affordable housing and community benefits are your two key objectives. Add to this the spurious constraints mentioned which are at complete odds with the findings of a government Planning Inspector { again not discussed } and no evidence to back up the claims . Whereas there is documented evidence to show the total lack of constraints to the development of the site.
It can only be assumed that there is one reason for this .
This is displayed in the final point of Policy 6-2 Housing Density and Design. This is aimed at protecting residents views of the countryside. As you will { or certainly should} know the protection of a view is not a material planning consideration. Whilst the planning system will not protect the view from your window , loss of outlook where development would have an adverse and overbearing effect that would result in an unduly oppressive living environment for residents would be avoided. As mentioned above the distance between the dwellings , together with window orientation , ensures no overbearing effects.
However , the suggested policy goes much further than that ,and as such is contrary to planning law and cannot be justified or defended under scrutiny. Finally , I would like to raise issues regarding Engagement – which might also link with some of the points mentioned above . On several occasions since the proposal was initially submitted I have volunteered to give a presentation to the Mackplan group/residents. This was considered important due to the amount of detail and material benefits associated with the scheme . The submission was not merely a red line around a site . A detailed Planning Policy Document , Design and Access Statement and Detailed Plans were submitted . Crucially it was considered necessary to explain the huge affordable housing quota and the land for community infrastructure issues .
I have not been invited on any occasion to brief the team or residents. Nor have I been notified of any of the ‘Drop In ‘ events . As a key stakeholder one would expect to be notified of such events rather than have to rely on constantly checking the website. This cannot be blamed on the current Covid restrictions as the requests for a presentation go back to 2015.
Added to this is the previous email confirmation from Mr Ashbridge which explained residents had only been informed of every sites location – without mention of the details of the scheme. The current report amplifies this approach by its failure to even discuss the affordable housing quota and the complete lack of any mention whatsoever of the land for community infrastructure.
Are all the residents aware of the material planning benefits involved with this scheme ?
These later matters will of course be more appropriate for the Regulation 16 consultation to follow and will be expanded on at that time .
Having lived in Milton Abbot of all our lives we are very protective over potential changes to the village which could bring negative consequences. We understand that additional housing is going to happen, but we are fearful that the focus is solely on adding houses rather than the impacts the housing has on others living in the area. Having reviewed the MACKPLAN we are very positive about the sites it has identified for future development and feel they bring the least negative impacts for established residents of the village. Well done to all who have worked so hard on the plan and hopefully their hard work rewards us all in the future shaping of our communities.
(8 of 8)
Community Engagement/Supporting Evidence/MACK Plan area
The MACK Plan team has said there is majority support for all the statements and proposals in the draft plan about building a lot of new houses in Milton Abbot, six affordable homes, new community buildings and green spaces. But they could not give me the appropriate supporting evidence even though they collected and recorded all individual residents feedback at community events and meeting people when distributing MACK plan material.
I also had to make a lot of assumptions about the draft plan because I could not get my concerns about it clarified by the MACK Plan Team. It might be helpful to everyone if they can make my questions (and their answers) available on their website very soon.
It is unusual to have ALL the local communities responding to the consultation when Milton Abbot is the ONLY place affected by it; especially as everyone MUST be influenced by where they live. Should this be addressed in any way later in the process or at the Referendum stage?
Or, wouldn’t it be better – if the draft plan still has to cover the whole area – to make sure its outcomes positively affect all the other communities as well? Maybe proposing some houses for Chillaton can give people there impetus to do what we want to do in Milton Abbot? The draft plan should therefore definitely include potential development sites outside Milton Abbot; new housing, potential funding and community benefits can then go to other places in the MACK Plan area.
This is imperative because the draft plan is supposed to be for everyone in the MACK Plan area. Other communities are just as worried about the future and want their village or hamlet to thrive. If you accept they must have the same concerns and aspirations as everyone in Milton Abbot – and want them addressed – the draft plan has to offer them something too.
Regulation 14 Consultation/Conclusion
The six week consultation should have been a bit more impartial. Its overall ‘message’ about how to respond seemed to change halfway at a critical point, both in the newsletter and other public statements; this was just when a lot of people would be starting to respond. No one should be ‘put off’ getting involved in the neighbourhood plan process because they think it is not worth it or a ‘done deal’. In a small village it could be fairly intimidating for someone to offer an opinion against the ‘majority’ views being announced everywhere, especially when these come from those who are running it.
Could the MACK Plan Team (and WDBC) please make sure any further consultations, and the Referendum publicity, encourage ALL residents to respond, whatever their point of view.
Without further definitive evidence of any formal directives or precise details of actual majority community support the current draft plan has not yet made the case for putting all 20 houses in one village in one place, the need for six affordable homes or demonstrated that the best development sites have been chosen. I cannot, therefore, support this draft plan in its current form.
Could all these comments be taken into consideration.
(7 of 8)
Site Assessments (cont)
MA SITE C – Vicarage Gardens (five houses)
AECOM say the site is close to services and facilities in the village centre, has vehicle access from the present Vicarage Gardens and is available with 12 months notice.
They say the site would be seen from the Tamar Valley Discovery Trail and from approximately seven properties, including three at Vicarage Gardens. (References to the Discovery Trail and eight properties in Lutyens Fold and Higher Edgcumbe Lane were not mentioned in the draft plan in regard to Site E).
AECOM rated these effects as ‘Medium Sensitivity’ for this site but ‘High Sensitivity’ for Site E. This is not consistent.
If you build new houses ANYWHERE in a small rural, historical village, surrounded by beautiful countryside, this will ALWAYS, “… lead to significant landscape and visual sensitivities and the potential for adverse impacts to the setting of heritage assets.”
AECOM rate the ‘harm’ caused by Site C as, “Some impact, and/or mitigation possible”. (It is unusual AECOM thinks Site E doesn’t affect any heritage assets).
There is also a reference to an ‘odour’ from the sewage works. This does not seem to have been a major issue for people who live in Vicarage Gardens. (This is also not mentioned in the draft plan in relation to Site E, even though this site is also close by).
Oddly, AECOM conclude the site is available but, “….not currently suitable”.
This site has always had local support for some development so I am not sure why the AECOM report and draft plan does not reflect this anywhere or why it is now just totally dismissed as ‘unsuitable’.
Village Boundaries
Such a fundamental change to Milton Abbot should be not in the draft Plan; this should be a separate consultation and just for Milton Abbot residents to decide.
The MACK Plan Team did not tell me how the ‘new’ boundary was chosen, or who chose it, but we should not be expanding the size of the village or increasing the ‘built up landscape’ beyond its current boundaries just to encompass Site E.