Appendix 2
Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension, Masterplan SPD.
Initial consultation
Summary of representations received and response.
1.General comments.
Many of the general concerns involved the lack of evidential documents available to the public which impacted their abilities to respond to the questionnaire and options report document with informed remarks. Response:At the second stage consultation on the draft masterplan SPD, the evidence base will be placed on the Council’s masterplanning website together with supporting information from DCC on the consideration of highway options, highway triggers and education provision.
Clear evidence for the size and scale of the development was requested to be available at future consultation events. Response: The need for the level of development planned for, its location and the allocation of this site were extensively tested via the examination in public by a Planning Inspector preceding the adoption of both the Core Strategy and Allocations and Infrastructure Development Plan Document. They are therefore adopted and are not able to be reopened within this document.
These events to be held in larger and more accessible locations over a longer period of time. Response:The second stage public consultation is proposed to take place over a seven week period with a range of consultation events including exhibitions. These will be more numerous than previously and held in Tiverton and Halberton. Given the problems with using the Pannier Market in connection with the first stage consultation, it is not proposed to use this again as a venue. A programme of proposed consultation events is being put together.
Respondents also enquired about hard copies of the documentation to be freely available at consultation events. Response: It is intended that summary leaflets will be available free of charge and a copy of the full draft masterplan SPD with evidence reports will be available on the Council’s website. Due to the likely cost of printing, a charge will need to be made for a hard copy of the masterplan SPD. It is likely that this charge will be subsidised by the Council.
It was commented that the plans and maps within the master planning document were of varying scales and formats, reducing the reader’s ability to compare different options. Response: The draft masterplan SPD addresses this point as it has been produced as a single document. The mapping information it contains reflects this single document approach.
Many respondents were unhappy with the location of the Eastern Urban Extension (EUE) and suggested the employment area should be situated by Junction 27 on the M5. Response: The location and the allocation of this site were extensively tested via the examination in public by a Planning Inspector preceding the adoption of the Allocations and Infrastructure Development Plan Document. It is therefore adopted and is not able to be reopened within this document. A separate process reviewing the existing Development Plan will look at future need and location of development for the District and there is expected to be a separate public consultation on this in early 2014.
Details of the phasing of the development were requested by a number of respondents, as it was briefly mentioned in the options report. Response: Proposed phasing was not available at the options stage. The draft masterplan SPD now contains proposed phasing for the urban extension.
There was some interest from a community group for relocation and creation of community led facilities within the suggested new local centre of the EUE.Response: The draft masterplan SPD incorporates proposals for the location of a neighbourhood centre incorporating community facilities together with sport and recreation.The masterplan SPD therefore provides for a range of such opportunities.
Responses regarding the vision of Post Hill in 2035 found it unrealistic, and viewed the vision as how Post Hill is at present. Many believed the vision should not have been included as it is not based on fact but an idealistic utopian view which cannot be met. Response: The draft masterplan SPD seeks to establish a framework of principles and mechanisms to deliver a comprehensive, high quality urban extension. The vision sets out the sort of place and community thatis being planned for. It sets out the context for other contents.
Highways
Most respondents were in favour of completing all infrastructure developments, including highway works before the construction of any dwellings. Response: In direct response to these concerns, themasterplan includes triggers that seek to deliver highway improvements early in the development phasing. A construction access is proposed prior to any development, a left in, left out part of the A361 junction is proposed prior to the occupation of any development.Other highway works to deliver traffic calming on Blundell’s Road, roundabout improvements and a full movement grade separated junction are also proposed to be delivered in early phases.
Increased traffic along and through Post Hill, Blundell’s Road and Follett Road was not deemed acceptable, and although traffic calming measures were suggested by some respondents, others believed these measures, if implemented, would be problematic. Response: Traffic forecasts indicate that traffic flows can be accommodated on Blundell’s Roadand their impact will be mitigated through early delivery of the A361 junction together with traffic calming and environmental enhancement. The masterplan SPD sets out principles that the traffic calming scheme will need totake into account.
Many suggestions were put forward as to how to ameliorate the traffic congestion both currently and in future. Suggestions included the implementation of traffic light junctions or roundabouts, the creation of cul-de-sacs, a temporary junction on the A361 for site traffic only and weight restrictions placed on certain roads. Response:The Highway Authority (Devon County Council) has assessed options to reduce the highway impact of the urban extension on the existing road system and local residents. These are set out in the Cabinet report and a more detailed options appraisal report will be available for the second stage public consultation.Having modelled and forecast traffic flows associated with the urban extension, the provision of a grade separate junction to the A361 is a deliverable and optimal solution.A roundabout is not acceptable to the Highway Authority due to capacity issues (would cause congestion), it would jeopardise the strategic function of the A361, is it would slow mainline traffic increasing emissions and noise.
Information on the impacts of the potential increase in traffic and how the likely impacts would be ameliorated would be beneficial to residents for future consultations. It was suggested that West Manley Lane would not be suitable for increased traffic due to the nature of the road and the proximity of the original Devon bank. Representations requested the creation of extra footpaths to the Great Western Canal (GWC) and creating new and separate cycle paths including a safe route into the centre of Tiverton. Response: The proposed masterplan shows a hierarchy of proposed new internal roads. It is not intended that West Manley Lane become a primary vehicular route and it is proposed to be flanked by substantial areas of greenspace. The masterplan also comprehensively plans for a network of footpath and cycle links through the development site and linking back to Tiverton along the Canal and formal railway line.
The location and viability of the Purple Junction (grade-separated junction onto A361) was very contentious in the comments from respondents, with many proposing the junction being moved further away from current residential areas west along the A361. It was questioned as to the noise and vibration levels which would arise from the location of the Purple Junction. Response: The location of the junction is constrained due to the need to retain a safe separation distance from the existing Gornhay Junction.It has been slightly revised to maximise distance from nearby dwellings and a plan has been prepared showing the distance between the edge of the highway works and dwellings with relative levels and mitigation in the form of earth bunding, planting and acoustic fencing to reduce impact. A full mitigation scheme will be designed and submitted with the planning application for the junction.
Those in favour of the Purple Junction commented on the suitability of the access throughout the whole of the development. Response: The amount of development expected on the urban extension at approx. 1500 houses and 35,000 sq m employment floorspace is now less that initially planned for.The A361 junction is proposed to be delivered in 2 phases in order to control the traffic impacts. The provision of the junction in conjunction with other highway works had been prioritised in order to be delivered in connection with early phases. Advice from the Highway Authority indicates that the highway infrastructure proposed will be sufficient to meet the additional traffic arising from the development as a whole.
Many responses put forward the use of the discarded Green Junction (existing bridge over A361) as the more favourable option to access to the development from the East as it would keep the feeder road away from Uplowman Road residents. Response: This option has been investigated and rejected by the Highway Authority on the basis of structural and design issues together with difficulties in accessing the third party land that would be required.
The discarded Pink Route (linking to Tiverton Business Park) was suggested as being used for primarily the employment area and Energy Waste Centre access to reduce the amount of commercial traffic through the new development site. It was questioned that if necessary, a Compulsory Purchase Order could be used to implement the development of this road, if found to be the preferred option. Response: This route has been investigated and rejected by the Highway Authority.It would put additional pressure on the existing roundabout at Lowman Way, resulting in congestionit would need to cross the River Lowman where there floodplain, ecological and other environmental issues that would need to be accommodated. In addition it would require the demolition of a building on the industrial estate and additional land outside the control of urban extension site.This cannot be purchased through a Compulsory Purchase Order process as there is an alternative option. This route is difficult to deliver, would be very expensive and is not the optimal solution.
The Red Routes (links to Heathcoat Way) were contentious, as some respondents preferred this option for access, while others believed it would not be suitable. It was perceived that the Red Route options would split the community of Coleman Close and Gornhay Orchard, while causing environmental damage and increased risk of flooding through and around the River Lowman and Paradise Woods. The reduction of the playing fields of Blundell’s School was also a concern with regard to the acceptability of the Red Routes. Response: The red routes to Heathcoat Way were assessed by the Highway authority and rejected for the primary strategic access into the urban extension. It would increase traffic and congestion in Heathcoat Way at the Lowman Way roundabout, would encourage more traffic movement through Tiverton town centre, rather than on the a361 bypass. Furthermore it would be expensive due to the need to cross the River Lowman and its floodplain, require third party land and the possible demolition of buildings. It would also encourage more traffic through Halberton and Sampford Peverell. This route is difficult to deliver, would be very expensive and is not the optimal solution.
A relief road north of Blundell’s School was put forward to be considered.Response: See comments above in connection with a link to Heathcoat Way.
The creation of footbridges over Blundell’s Road was also proposed to provide easier and safer access for students to Blundell’s School. Response: Pedestrian crossing movements of Blundells Road in connection with the school have been analysed. Bridges are unlikely to be effective unless pedestrian barriers are used to line the road, but this would create an unattractive appearance. There are also multiple vehicular access points that need to be maintained and could still be used by pedestrians as informal crossing points. The masterplan seeks to set out a series of principles for a future detailed scheme that ensures pedestrian safety and whilst also creating an attractive environment. It will be designed to both slow and deter through traffic.
Environmental
Many respondents expressed concern over the impact on the local flora and fauna in the EUE development site. Many recorded seeing slow worms, grass snakes, buzzards, dormice and badgers among other animals. There are a number of mature trees and hedgerows which have caused great trepidation among respondents over their preservation, with some suggesting Tree Preservation Orders and preservation sites to be assigned before any development commences. Response: survey and assessment work has been undertaken. Whilst these are in more detail over the land to the north of Blundell’s Road, nevertheless there is a broad understanding of the likely nature and ecological interest of the site. The masterplan proposes a two stage approach with a further masterplannig exercise being required on land to the south east once further, more detailed surveys have been completed in these areas. In this manner the ecological effects can be fully taken into account. The masterplan proposes amounts and locations of development within the site that have regard to ecology and existing natural features of the site such as significant hedges and
The area surrounding West Manley Lane wassuggested to be included as part of the Green Link Corridor and used as SUDS protection to Tidcombe Fen. The Tidcombe Fen was requested to be protected adequately as well as the copse to the south of Mayfair. Negative impacts on the Fen might arise due to the quality and amount of water feeding into the Fen and should be avoided where possible. Response: The contents of the masterplan make it clear that Tidcombe Fen SSSI is sensitive to changes to its hydrology. A hydrological catchment area has been identified within existing planning policies and includes part of the area to be part of the green infrastructure in connection with the urban extension. The masterplan advises that detailed proposals must have regard to the SSSI and not detrimentally affect it.
The Grand Western Canal is a tourist destination, and representations suggested it should act as a natural barrier and remain apart from the development, being protected and enhanced, along with the old railway line and cycle path. Suggestions also included the use of green corridors and orchards to retain the rural character of the area including the creation of a traditional village green. The Post Hill ridge was recommended to be retained, as well as the wooded riverside areas for wildlife and recreational activities. Response: housing and employment development associated with the urban extension is not proposed to be located adjacent to the canal in order to safeguard its setting and ecological / conservation value. The allocation proposes an area of green infrastructure between the canal and the built development in order to provide a buffer area. The masterplan builds on this approach and retains the area between the former railway line and canal as a mix of different types of green space. The former railway line is to be retained as a footpath / cycle route. The masterplan includes proposals for green corridors and orchards as part of a comprehensive and extensive provision of green spaces and connecting features. Illustrative material for the neighbourhood centre includes a green that can be designed to act as a focal point. The steepest sections of Post Hill ridge are retained as greenspace in the form of a landscaped spine running broadly east – west across the site.
Representation received raised the high risk of flooding in around the EUE site, and many suggestions and concerns surrounded flood risk and prevention. Representations commentedon how the development should not have an impact on the existing flooding problems as an increase in runoff would cause greater flooding problems for locations further downstream of the River Exe, such as Exeter, Bickleigh, Stoke Canon as well as locations in the vicinity of Tiverton. Response: Preliminary flood risk analysis has taken place in liaison with advice from the Environment Agency.Areas subject to flooding have been identified. The masterplan takes account of flood areas as a development constraint. The masterplan includes the need for a comprehensive approach to surface water drainage across the urban extension area with on-site attenuation (water storage) in order to not increase risk of flooding off site.It sets out a requirement for this to be addressed at the planning application stage when a surface water drainage strategy will be required.