The Chair to advise the Committee of any items on which members of the public have requested to speak and advise those members of the public present of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.
For those members of the public who have submitted any questions or statements, please note, a three minute time limit applies to each speaker and you will be asked to speak before Councillors debate the issue.
Temporary measures during the Coronavirus Pandemic
Due to the Government guidance on measures to reduce the transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19), we will holding meetings in a virtual manner which will be live webcast on our website. Members of the public will still be able to register to speak and ask questions, which will then be read out by the Governance and Democracy Case Manager during Public Question Time and will either be answered by the Chair of the Committee, or the relevant Portfolio Holder, or be followed up with a written response.
Minutes:
Mr Tony Laurence spoke on agenda item 7, Monkton Heathfield: SS1 Policy Area and MH2 Concept Plan and Design Principles.
I am speaking in my capacity as Chair of the Conservation of West Monkton Society. Over the past three years, we have raised concerns with Councillors and officials about the impact on our community of proposed changes to highways connected with the Monkton Heathfield development - in particular the proposed bus-gate on the A3259, which, we believe, will lead through traffic to use local roads, including those through our village, as a rat-run and defeat the purpose of having the bus-gate. We have consistently been told that the installation of the bus-gate was a legal requirement arising from the section 106 agreement. So earlier this year, when Persimmon were consulting on traffic calming measures on the A3259, we took legal advice.
The legal advice we received is that the proposal for the bus-gate was indicative only and that therefore there is and never has been a decision or legal or contractual requirement to install the bus-gate. Persimmon's consultation was therefore invalid. I conveyed this information to officers and Councillors of both Somerset County Council and Somerset West and Taunton Council in May. Despite this, para 4.31 of Mr Penna's summary paper for item 7 (SWT 83/20) states that the bus-gate is to go ahead because it is ' is required by legal agreements dating from the first phase of the Monkton scheme'.
I am calling on the Council now to rescind this statement - or to justify it. We are asking for the proposal for the bus-gate to be re-considered along with the other proposed solutions to road and traffic issues as suggested at para 4.30 of the same paper.
Thank you, Tony Laurance
The Portfolio Holder responded: The County who were responsible for the legal agreement and the bus gate had confirmed that the position set out in the Report was correct.
Mr Mark Besley spoke on agenda item 7, Monkton Heathfield: SS1 Policy Area and MH2 Concept Plan and Design Principles.
The Parish Council supports the majority of the aims of the Concept Plan and Design Principles and has had positive engagement with the project lead from SWT. It is heartening to see that the plan has been changed following discussions on the first draft plan presented to the PC in January. There are however three points that I would like to make......
Firstly, the text of the Design Principles Section 9 states that ‘the existing A38 is to be retained for local traffic provision’ however later under ‘Potential positive interventions’ it states that ‘Consideration should be given to potential for part/total pedestrianisation of the current road subject to ensuring continued local road access to existing homes and businesses’.
There is real concern that closing the A38 between the Langaller and Cricket Club roundabouts will result in high levels of local business traffic (including HGV’s) having to go through the District Centre. This is contra to the Garden Town ethos and conflicts with the objective of the District Centre (Section 8) which is to ‘produce an environment that is safe, well-enclosed and a focus for social interaction’.
It is unclear how the ‘total pedestrianisation’ of this stretch of the current A38 could still maintain the road being retained for local traffic provision. We request that the reference to the option of ‘total pedestrianisation’ is removed from the document to correct this contradiction.
Secondly, in the Design Principles in Section 10 The downgrading of the existing A38 alignment under ‘Barriers to integration’ the document states ‘The road can be retained for local traffic provision’ and ‘Local traffic will still have to be allowed along this route to access the existing dwellings’. The document also states that ‘consideration should be given to bus only routes or bus gates’ - please clarify how this can be achieved – what is the mechanism used to facilitate a bus gate and still allow local traffic?
Finally the installation of a bus gate on the A3259 is a contentious issue with concerns that it will force unsuitable traffic along unsuitable roads. The main Concept Plan and Design Principles document - section 4.31 states ‘The bus gate location is required by legal agreements dating from the first phase of the Monkton scheme’. There is a genuine question of whether the bus gate is a legal requirement or was ‘indicative’ in previous plans (this is being challenged by some residents). Prompted by requests from the Parish Council in 2015 it received correspondence from SCC that ‘no traffic modelling run or minuted meeting can be provided which evidences the original decision to locate the bus gate where currently proposed or what consultation took place’. Traffic calming measures required by the Western Relief Road, Hartnells Farm development and further up the A38 should be aimed at deterring through traffic and making the road used by local residents and local business users only. The Parish Council requests that decisions regarding bus gates on the A3259/A38 are made based on traffic flows after traffic calming has been installed on the A38/A3259 and on modelling that considers actual and projected traffic flows covering the entirety of the development and is not based on decisions made a considerable time ago when the highways infrastructure and pressures were very different. In order to maintain the cohesion of the village it may be that the more suitable location for the bus gate would be where the new ERR branches off the old A38.
The Portfolio Holder responded: Thank you for those helpful comments which would be considered in full as part of the public consultation on the draft plans and supporting design document.
Simon Hutchings spoke on agenda item 7, Monkton Heathfield: SS1 Policy Area and MH2 Concept Plan and Design Principles.
You will recall that representatives of both West Monkton (WM) and Creech St Michael (CSM) Parish Councils (PC) attended the Executive on the 28th January 2020 to further voice the concerns that had been previously raised in the preceding months, in writing with Officers, on the lack of consultation, the failure to take on board points being made, to express a need for real consultation prior to the issuing of future reports to the Executive and to set out a number of specific issues about proposals for the Developments causing concern to the Parish Councils.
Since then a meeting was held on the 15 March 2020 in CSM with the Leader and Portfolio Holder, representatives of sec and officers which unfortunately, I was unable to attend. This included a minibus tour of the sites in order to demonstrate the key issues on the ground. At that meeting a number of principles were agreed alongside discussion of each of the major shortcomings of the plans and our Parish Councillors (PCllrs) came away believing that there was finally an acceptance on the need for proactive consultation and acceptance of the points raised.
Since then our clerk has had to frequently ask to discuss the contents of the report planned for this Executive, and despite written assurances that we would be informed, once again this has not happened. No further consultation has taken place and we have had to wait until the report was published on the 13 May to obtain a copy.
CSM PCllrs are very disappointed to learn that despite the statement in Para 1.6 "that changes have been made" that our main concerns have been totally disregarded as the plans attached to the report still show, for example, the road between the Cricket Ground and the Langaller Roundabout to be pedestrianised, the exit from the rear of the Employment site at Manor Farm onto Hyde Lane is still in situ, and vehicle access to the School is not from the existing A38, etc. We are however pleased to see that the report does now acknowledge the need for impacts on the wider road network to be assessed (para 4.27).
We feel strongly that far from a community-based approach there is a continuing disregard of the practical views about these developments of the two Parish Councils, Creech St Michael and West Monkton & Cheddon Fitzpaine, who will represent this area in future. For example, the site visit and meeting in March is mentioned in the covering paper but the report does not set out what our concerns are. For the benefit of members not involved in that meeting these should have been reported in detail in the report. Our views are the result of experiencing living and working in the area, and reflect the knowledge of how MH1 is performing as a residential environment.
Hopefully, in the future we can work closer together as proposals for MH2 progress, as the majority of the build will be within the Parish of Creech St Michael.
KEY ISSUES:
(1). Hyde Lane. CSM & WM & CF PCs don't want an exit onto Hyde Lane from the proposed industrial site; the entrance should be off the ERR roundabout. Hyde Lane is a safe route to school and an exit would require students to cross the road, with 50 tonne lorries, vans and cars exiting and then "rat running", as a short cut through CSM village past the village infant/junior school and medical centre, and connecting to the A358/MS. The PC want pedestrians and cyclists only to have access from employment site.
(2). Access to the Playing Fields. Hyde Lane is subject to access from rugby club following pedestrianisation but would like access; this need to be discussed along with the playing fields. The heap of spoil adjacent to the Hyde Lane Cottages needs to be removed and looked at as part of those discussion.
(3). ERR. The ERR needs to have another lane to prevent queueing to enable turning right and left at the Bathpool roundabout and adjacent junction. There is room though there may be an issue on how far back it can come. It can do approx. 100 metres.
(4). Milton Hill. The issue is the bus stop; every time a bus stops there it will grid lock the traffic and prevent use of both routes.
(5). Road between Cricket Ground and Langaller roundabouts. This road needs to be kept, with trees and the bunds and fences removed in order to open up the development.
(6). Highways. The CSM & WM & CF PCs asked for a copy of the Highways scoping documentation. We were advised in March that it was an ongoing commercially sensitive discussion at present which could not be shared as the data would all need to be collected and processed to enable the impacts to be understood. We have still not seen this document.
(7). Bus Gates. Further discussion on Bus gating is required. Current proposal with a bus gate on the A38 is not supported by CSM PC.
(8). CSM Road Safety. We were reassured that the problems are now understood but no conversation on mitigation has yet been discussed.
(9). School. Design, Facilities to be provided, Vehicle Access and Parking (to be off Existing A38 not District Centre).
Simon Hutchings, Chairperson, CSM PC.
The Portfolio Holder responded: The Report set out that the Plans had changed since they were first reported to Executive in January 2020. As agreed with the Parish Councils when the Leader and PFH met with them in March 2020, the Report made clear that no options were ruled in or out at this stage. The Plans were being published, as also agreed with the Parishes, for public consultation so that the views of local residents and businesses could be gathered.
David Redgewell gave the following statement:
Can you please forward our statement to the Executive meeting as the need to make progress on the designing of the Bus and coach station?
We would very much support the lease of the operational area of the Bus Station to First Group and for the use by National Express Coaches. The layout need to allow social distancing and marking and signage on platform areas. The bays need to allow social distancing and disabled access. The waiting room will need the seating layout changed to be safe for passengers with social distancing.
The Council can also make money from bringing back the take away cafe in the future. As this is an emergency and we need to make our public transport network safe in Somerset and Taunton, progress on the lease is very important as it is not possible to social distance buses on Castle Way and the Parade as departure points in line with the Department for Transport regulations.
Under the guidance a double decker bus can only carry 20 passengers to route 22 Wellington or route 21 Bridgwater and Burnham on Sea with just 10 bus passengers on the Minehead route 28. For example it will require 3 buses to Wellington at peak time to carry just 60 passengers.
Finally laying out emergency social distancing bays is the only safe option for passengers as Taunton and Somerset slowly return to work.
The alternative is to barrier off bus stops in the Parade and provide marshals for bus services and line up buses on the street similar in Castle Way which is not a very safe practice. Castle Way will need to be used by Hatch Green bus services.
Travel Watch South West Railfuture Severnside and South West Transport Network would welcome urgent action on the bus station lease. Somerset County Council, the transport authority, needs to be involved in the discussions, as the rest of the bus and coach station and interchanges in the south west are local authorities owned. We would welcome signage in the bus station showing it's owned by Somerset West and Taunton Council.
David Redgewell, South West Transport Network and Railfuture Severnside.
The Portfolio Holder responded: that the answer was covered in the response given to the question raised when the minutes of the previous meeting were debated.