Meeting documents

Mrs J Calcroft spoke on Agenda Item 6 – Monkton Heathfield Urban Extension Policy Update.

I refer to agenda item 6 and would like to draw Councillors attention to page 21 of the report and in particular to sections 4.10, 4.11 and 4.21.

The Council’s Core Strategy drawn up in 2012 was an employment led policy. In April 2016 we were told ‘The Core Strategy review had commenced, whilst the Adopted Core Strategy remained current and in place, the review process would access new data that would update the Strategy’.  It was almost 3 years since the review started.  It must have been completed by now.  She appreciated that some aspects of the Council’s amended, new Local Plan could leave them vulnerable to challenge from developers because of  recent changes in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).   But hopefully the data used to inform the new Core Strategy would place them in a more robust position with regard to the sustainability of Monkton Heathfield and later on with Staplegrove and Comeytrowe (the Garden Town trio in the Council’s proposals referred to in paragraph 4.13).  The Council needed more pro-active, robust policies to withstand challenges from developers.  They should have irrefutable evidence to show the need for more employment to accompany increased housing.  Increasing density requirements to cram in more houses, without the much needed road infrastructure which Councillors and the public recognised was needed but somehow eluded officers and Somerset County Council (SCC) Highways Authority was quite honestly crazy and inexcusable yet The Leader  and his Executive colleagues ‘complained’ that others talk Taunton down!  The officers report stated that employment land could now be considered for  ‘more appropriate’ uses including houses. ‘Quite frankly I’m getting tired of the Council’s lack of teeth and its lack of carefully considered and well informed forward planning’.  Way back last year when the NPPF consultation was underway, the Council should have better anticipated how proposals, if they went through, would make them more vulnerable at the hands of developers.  Those proposals did not come out of the blue.  It was known in advance that they could and indeed were likely to happen.   Surely it would have been better for our Council to have reviewed aspects of certain policies in advance which would robustly stand up to scrutiny and demonstrate the need for an employment led local strategy rather than walk us blindly into most likely becoming a dormitory town for commuters who work and spend their monies elsewhere.  So now we face the loss of some employment land.  What next?  Reading paragraphs 4.10 and 4.11 in the report raised concerns.  Was the size of the Green Wedge the next to be compromised?

Mrs Calcroft’s questions were:-

Where could members of the public access Taunton Deane Borough Council’s reviewed Core Strategy?

How did the Council propose to ensure that new housing developments were truly sustainable if on-site local employment areas, which would include local shops as well as other ‘jobs’, were reduced and more residents of the new houses forced to travel further for their groceries and work?

Was cramming more houses on a site with less local employment opportunities not contradictory to paragraph 4.10 where the intention was to recognise a means to reduce CO2 emissions?

The Assistant Director for Planning and Environment gave the following response:-

The Core Strategy work had been carried out but they hadn’t yet compiled a draft report or sent out for consultation.  Some of the work had been guided by the Task and Finish Group that had recently carried out work on use of employment land.  The calculations used had changed since 2012 when the Strategy was first compiled.  Employment land had been highlighted. 

Originally high density developments were used to minimise the need for green space developments.  However, now the density had lessoned, employment land could be used, even if it had previously been allocated.