Harbertonford | Region / Earlier Comments To Forward Planning browse

These comments apply to earlier rounds in the planning process, so this page is closed to further comment. Use this page instead.

Dear Sir/Madam,

The document http://www.southhams.gov.uk/harbertonford_jan_2010_consultation.pdf is meant to address an error in the original maps provided in May 2009. However it would appear that a new error has crept in.

On page two the area of RA18 above the garage does not agree with the area shown as 7 on page three. The area shown on page three extends up to point opposite the entrance below Maryland House whilst the area RA18 on page two only extends up to a point opposite the top boundary of the school. Could your department please make it very clear in the documentation that is due for publication in March which area is correct? If the larger area on page three is correct then could the northern area of it be allotment space as it once was many years ago thereby satisfying the villages needs for such a space?

Yours sincerely, David Groom

A second letter from Clive Fairweather, converted into pdf from his typescript. 11 February 2010

Jan Friend writes, 10/2/2010:

Dear Sirs,

Why are there now plans to build sixty new houses, when originally I understand a figure of less than ten was quoted? Harbertonford, the village, would be able to absorb ten new dwellings and still keep its village 'feel' - but sixty would be a completely different matter!

Following on from the Parish Council Meeting held on 9th February 2010, I also have the following comments and questions.

Having been informed that Harbertonford was chosen for expansion as it had the relevant facilities needed, I was shocked to hear that one of those facilities (the garage) may have to be closed/demolished to make way for this development. More houses, more residents and one less facility - where would be the sense in that?

I am also concerned about increased amounts of traffic. Living on Old Road I experience cars speeding up and down past the school on a daily basis. Not good for children, the elderly, walkers, pets or dog walkers, such as myself. To increase the village by another sixty houses would I feel make matters worse. And there would also be the parking issue. We have already had problems with large vehicles, including the emergency services, trying to get past parked vehicles.

Along with other villagers, I would welcome the continued development of the Old Mill, which is currently an eyesore. I find it unbelievable that the owner of this property cannot be traced. I have been informed by, what I would consider, a reliable source that the Mill is registered with Land Registry and, for a fee of Ł4, a copy may be obtained.

I would also like to say that I agree with comments concerning the need for more public open space (for all including, dare I suggest it, dog owners?) It seems unbelievable that we live in the countryside and have nowhere to exercise our pets, apart from walking the lanes where we risk life and limb from speeding cars.

I would welcome replies to my comments and questions.

Yours sincerely, Jan Friend, North Ley, Old Road, Harbertonford

From: Serena Scrine, 8 February 2010 To: forward.planning@southhams.gov.uk, Subject: Harbertonford

Dear Sirs

I am the programme leader for a degree course at Plymouth College of Art called Spatial Design, which covers design principles for interior and exterior design work. I live in Harbertonford, and was concerned to see the planned development for housing in the village, both as a resident and also with my design hat on.

I am in favour of well planned housing, made of good materials, with sufficient room space and well situated in the town/village landscape. But I am concerned at the density of housing proposed, and at the lack of consideration for open spaces. The village has very little open space for play, parties, sitting watching the world go by, or orchards and allotments. Yet many studies show that successful planning must include all these considerations.

I would like to suggest before any particular number of properties is fixed on, that the village people are included in a consultation process. I can recommend an independent planning consultant called Deborah McCann based in Plymouth and could supply her contact details to you. She has worked in similar situations with several village and town councils in the same situation. She helps the residents draw up a landscape character analysis, to check how proposed new developments can be successfully integrated into an existing streetscape. You need to know that you can flow in and through the village still, and that it possesses these crucial open places of different sizes and character, that people can pause and occupy for different reasons.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely

Serena Scrine 14 Riverdale Harbertonford.

Clive Fairweather has tapped out an eloquent comment on his typewriter. Here is the Fairweather letter as a pdf.

from Tim and Frances Padfield, May Cottage, Old Road, Harbertonford TQ9 7TA. 6 February 2010

We have these criticisms of the planned expansion of Harbertonford.

There is no consideration of the village as a whole and how to improve the quality of life while increasing the population. Even the small concessions to modern ideas about healthy living are not convincingly presented.

The proposed provision of play space and unspecified open space for this new community is inadequate in the context of the village as a whole, which has zero public green space (The green by the bridge is not yet designated as common land, the school playground is church owned, primarily for young children, the football ground is limited to footballers). Any increase in the size of the village should be accompanied by a disproportionately large allocation of public open space to compensate for the present lack of space.

Current guidelines for planning new housing emphasise the need to consider the provision of allotments and pedestrian and cycle paths to schools and to market towns. The village has no allotments in spite of local demand. The allotment society failed to get the active support of local landowners. This planning for community expansion provides the chance to designate land for allotments, in advance of the planned building (see footnote).

Most older children of the village attend the secondary school in Totnes. There is a quiet cycle route to the east parallel to the A381 but this is spoilt by the narrowness of the new footpath along the A381 where it descends into Totnes. Planning for an expansion of Harbertonford should include widening this footpath to a cycle lane. There is space to do this.

The promise of 'footpath access to the village centre' will be difficult to realise for two of the sites, and from the third site, east of the filling station, people will walk beside a main road on a footpath less than a metre wide in several places. Or does 'footpath' really mean walking on narrow roads and mixing with the traffic?

Our most serious criticism of this proposal is to question whether it is sensible to add any houses to this community. Even with the planned 0.1 hectare for employment land the vast majority of the extra inhabitants will be commuting to jobs in Totnes, Kingsbridge, Dartmouth, Newton Abbot, Plymouth and Exeter. They will mostly use cars, often several per household, because there will still not be a big enough population to justify public transport of the frequency which city dwellers enjoy. As jobs become more specialised, all countries are experiencing a movement of population to large urban centres. Dumping fifty houses in Harbertonford will add congestion and car use, and unnecessary use of energy. There is no evidence, and certainly no assurance, that the new houses will benefit those with a historic connection with Harbertonford. The low cost housing will be allocated from waiting lists for the general region, the high cost housing will be bought by those with the money, probably unconnected with the village. This is an exercise in fulfilling quotas imposed by distant authorities with a dogmatic attitude to housing the population increase.

If this considerable expansion of the village is carried through, the planners should put much more effort into improving the quality of life of the entire community, in the way of green space, allotments, safe foot and bicycle travel. There is no evidence in this document that forward planning has done any real planning at all.

There is one area, RA17, where we, and perhaps many other people, would welcome new dwellings. The old mill is in sad dereliction. Why wait until after 2016 to do something about renovating this imposing building and its scruffy surroundings? We suggest you move forward this part of the proposal. Drop the footpath, since Woodland road is not busy, and drop RA18 altogether, unless you combine it with providing the village with generous open space for play, for orchard and for allotments.

Footnote: Planning for allotments ought to be a normal and integral part of the preparation of structure and local plans under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In Annex 3 to the current version of Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG 17) "Sport and Recreation", issued by the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR), the opening paragraph states:

"In preparing development plans, local planning authorities should undertake an assessment of the likely demand for allotments and their existing allotment provision, and prepare policies which aim to meet the needs of their area. In doing so they should take into account the advice set out in this guidance in respect of informal open spaces, which encompasses and should, therefore, be applied to allotments".

There are other relevant paragraphs in this document, downloadable from:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicyguidance17

In the case of Harbertonford, there are 18 households which are members of the allotments society. Provision of allotments was rated the top priority (75% rated it an important facility) in a recent poll of residents' wishes for village facilities.

Comments on the earlier (June 2009) proposal

Meg Leng writes (Thursday, 2 July 2009)

I wish to put forward my objections to the draft proposals for building site options at Harbertonford.

Thank you [Graham Swiss] for your clear and calm appraisal of the proposals at the public meeting last Tuesday. There were engineers and flood specialists at that meeting who put forward the flood risks, particularly in the sites above the bridge, with greater skill than I could, so I'll concentrate on my concern regarding extra traffic in Moreleigh Road and Woodcourt Road.

Parked cars along one side of Moreleigh Road render it a single lane highway for twelve months of the year. Heavy vehicles regularly get stuck, especially at the narrow junction of Woodcourt and Moreleigh, and end up knocking bits off the cottages they are attempting to squeeze past. These narrow village streets were never meant for the passage of heavy vehicles. The people who live alongside them suffer, as do the walls and possibly the foundations of old cottages.

The Totnes Times had an article from the fire officer recently, indicating his concern that the speed and efficiency with which they would hope to respond to a fire in Moreleigh and Woodcourt roads would be seriously curtailed by having to remove parked cars blocking their free passage.

Most of the cottages in Moreleigh Road open directly onto the road, very few having front 'areas'. With an ear open for traffic it is still possible to open one's front door & step safely into the road, with push chairs or dogs on leads, small children, bikes or invalid carriages, rubbish or ladders. With an increase of traffic this will feel much more risky.

Children still cycle and play in Moreleigh Road, gather outside one another's houses, walk their dogs or ride their ponies. Villagers still gather and chat in the road, this being one of the pleasures of village life. I have a concern regarding the drawing of the map as presented by your team. It has inaccuracies, the most glaring being the scale in which Hernaford Road is depicted. Reaching from Moreleigh Road to Hernaford Cottages, the 'road' appears comparable in size to the A318, which is ridiculous to anyone who knows it. Hernaford Lane (the sign was changed approx. eighteen months ago to Hernaford Road) is, apart from the first few yards, one of the oldest green lanes in the county. As such,it is our heritage: we should be protecting it not putting it at risk. Any intrusion into or alongside would do irreparable damage to it and the rich variety of wild life that live in it or use it as a hunting corridor. Building in proposed site 5 would ruin it for ever. The lane acts as a conduit for water after heavy rains and is one of the few safe and peaceful lanes for walkers, dog walkers and horse riders in or around the village.

Obviously I have other objections to the draft proposals but I'm sure you'll get tired of having them repeated in every letter. The only site that has anything going for it seems to be rejuvenation of the site of the old woollen mill.

Tim Padfield's email to South Hams Forward Planning team, and Harberton Parish Council

sent Thursday, 25 June 2009

Dear Forward Planning

Concerning the map of sites identified by South Hams Forward Planning Office as suitable for building new houses in Harbertonford

Thank you for sending Graham Swiss to explain to the people of Harbertonford how you selected the sites for building houses (23 June 2009 at Harbertonford school).

Graham gave a clear explanation which was, nevertheless, depressing. It revealed that far from planning anything, you ask landowners where they would like to sell land for housing, and then you have no power to force the developer of that land to provide public facilities to compensate for the increasing population of the village, nor do you have money to provide necessary infrastructure improvements outside the housing sites. It seems your only justification for having 'planning' in your title is that designating suitable areas allows you to contest planning applications for sites outside these favoured areas. The fashionable word 'sustainability' means, for you, that the village has a primary school and a shop. This is a bureaucrat's box ticking interpretation of a noble concept. When the primary children get older - how do they sustainably get to the secondary school, then to university? A cycle track to Totnes would sustainably solve the first step up the knowledge ladder, but forward planning has no power to enforce that expensive initiative, which would also benefit other inhabitants of the village.

Your limited and passive way of working does not encourage villagers to support further house building, because we see only disadvantages in such development. In Harbertonford, cynicism about local government is increased by the apparent inability of the local authorities to enforce the development of the derelict mill building, which would provide dwellings with immediate benefit to the appearance of our village. There are also many empty houses in the village which are immediately habitable, including Bridgeview cottage, Old Road, which is owned by the council. Given the enormous waiting list for houses, what power does the local authority have to enforce the renting of empty houses? I refer you to a BBC news item (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8117341.stm) which quotes the Hounslow council threat to issue an "Empty Dwelling Management Order" which would allow the council to take possession of the property and bring it back into use.

It seems that South Hams Council has taken the easy option to ask landowners where they would like to make a fat profit from selling building land, then allow developers to do what they like consistent with UK planning laws, without insisting on added value to the community in the way of off road parking for existing houses, parks, playground, footpaths, swimming pool, library, 20 mph speed limit, safe road crossings, nature reserve, allotments, orchard, hedgerow trees, wild corners for wildlife. In short, your activities show zero concern for planning for sustainability, understood as improving the quality of life of the people in your district without increasing the stress on natural resources.

As for your designated areas for housing, my first comment is that your map is misleading, maybe deliberately, in that it increases the width of all roads adjacent to the nominated areas to equal that of the A381. In reality, access is difficult to nearly all the areas. The map does not show contours, thus concealing the steep slope of many sites. Graham emphasised that all new development must not increase runoff, but that is disingenuous. In practice, even if the developers lay sufficient drains, over a few years they will block or be bypassed by house owners neglecting gutter maintenance, concreting gardens for parking and generally applying traditional and unofficial cheap and easy solutions. All the sites upstream of Harbertonford bridge should channel runoff to discharge far below the village, but that won't happen. All sites upstream of the bridge will also generate children who have to survive crossing the A381 to reach the school in a sustainable manner. Yet there are no plans for a footbridge over this increasingly busy road.

Forward planning, as revealed in Graham Swiss' fluent presentation, is a sham operation, benefitting only rich landowners and developers and making no effort to exploit the existing resource of empty houses and derelict, yet listed, ruins.

Though most of this letter is an expression of opinion, which you may respond to if you wish, I ask for specific answers to several questions:

1. Why has the ordnance survey map of the area been altered to widen the roads, and who did this? The map claims crown copyright, yet the sites are not superimposed on the original OS map. How do you justify this alteration while still claiming crown copyright?

2. What was the exact process of identifying candidate housing areas? Was there a public announcement, when was it issued and were local landowners specifically contacted by South Hams Council to ask for sites they would be willing to sell to developers?

3. Does South Hams Council have power, as Hounslow council evidently does, to take over empty houses and install tenants?

4. If the answer to 3 is yes, have you ever enforced such an order. If not, why not?

Some of these questions may best be answered by other offices in South Hams Council. Please ensure that all are answered.

regards

Tim Padfield

May Cottage, Old Road, Harbertonford TQ9 7TA

Copies to Harberton Parish Council, Paula Black (Devon CC councillor for Totnes Rural) and www.harbertonford.org

Clive Fairweather

writes on a mechanical typewriter. His two letters to the council, dated 4 June and 24 June are attached as pdf scans

Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence write

WE are also concerned about the increase in housing around Harbertonford. The main concern, and one we cannot see a way around, is the parking. There is not enough as it is and, of course, this concern has been raised by others and we are endorsing their fears. Also how can you state that one school, one shop and one public house can possibly be enough for the amount of additional houses that are proposed. WE are not NIMBY'S but really what is proposed is NOT workable. Signed: Mr. & Mrs Lawrence, 2 Bridgeside, Hartbertonford TQ9 7UH

Frances Padfield writes

Dear Forward Planning Team,

General comments on possible sites for housing development in Harbertonford.

The map of Harbertonford showing potential building sites is not correct. The errors I have noticed are:

all the roads (except Kiln Lane) have been widened. Many of the shaded areas overlap the roads and the houses next to the roads are improbably narrow, suggesting that the base map roads have been overwritten.

There are no contours on the map, making it impossible to judge the suitability of the sites unless one has a personal knowledge of the area.

The assessment sheet is wrong and is inconsistent with the map:

Sites 5 and 6 are transposed between the map and the table of Sustainability Threshold Assessments.

Sites 2 and 7 have had their areas transposed.

Because of these inconsistencies we cannot see which assessment belongs to which site, nor can we be sure that the assessments relate to the areas identified. The documents need to be proof read properly, corrected and republished for public comment.

Harbertonford already suffers from serious run off, particularly in Bow Road and Old Road. Developing these sites, with the possible exception of nr. 3 (Land at Mill Court), would severely increase the risk of flooding in the village.

There is already serious traffic congestion in the village. Further development will exacerbate this.

The use of the words "planning" and "sustainabilty", in connection with this project, appears to be a complete misnomer. How contacting landowners and asking them if they would like to make money by having a housing development on their agricultural land merits being called planning is sheer cynicism. There is no mention of the quality of life in the village or added value to the community in the form of safe road crossings, nature reserve, allotments, community orchard, hedgerows, footpaths, 20 mph speed limit, easement of traffic congestion and parking problems and more. There is no obvious consideration taken of most of the paragraphs in the South Hams Local Plan Review Sustainability Appraisal 2002.

Comments on sites 1 and 3 (on the map).

1. Land north of Harbertonford Primary School.

This plot has already been identified by HAS as the best site in the village for allotments.

In January 2008 19 Harbertonford residents formed Harbertonford Allotment Society (HAS) and presented a petition to Harberton Parish Council (HPC) requesting allotments. In February HAS met the HPC requesting support in their search for land. The HPC supported the request. Since then HAS has grown to 25. The site 1, on the map, was identified as the most suitable place for allotments in the village because:

It is within short walking distance of the whole village It faces south and is out of the frost hollow It has an existing level entrance from Old Road There is a parking space by the entrance There is a water supply in Old Road, next to the field The field is next to the school, making it easy for the school children to have their own allotments.

3. Land at Mill Court

This, the only brownfield site, seems ideal for development. The listed mill needs saving from dereliction and its development would improve the village. It would lend itself to a mix of both housing and workshops. There is space for off road parking. The amount of water runoff would probably not be much different from at present. The existing road should be able to take a little more traffic.

I point out that the empty and derelict properties in the parish make us resentful of attempts to add more houses on greenfield sites. Cf.Sustainability Appraisal, page 22, Policy HO2: The Sequential Approach for Housing Development "No housing development will be permitted on greenfield sites unless it can be demonstrated that the development could not be achieved through: a) the re-use of previously developed sites .... b) better use and/or conversion of existing premises."

There is an empty house on Old Road which is owned by the council. There is a house in Harberton which has been empty for many years. Why has S. Hams not used "The Empty Dwelling Management Order" concerning this second house? The old mill(site 3) has been empty for years. This complacency by the council does not encourage local residents to support council suggestions for new development.

Yours sincerely

Frances Padfield

May Cottage, Old Road, Harbertonford TQ9 7TA

Copies to Harberton Parish Council and www.harbertonford.org

Anthony Harrison wrote in a letter dated 28th June:

As part of my keen interest in the draft proposals concerning seven possible sites for housing development in Harbertonford, I attended the public meeting ... at which Graham Swiss provided background and answered questions. This proved very useful. Allow me to offer a few observations, not necessarily in order of priority. · I accept that local authorities are required by central government to work towards increased housing provision, and in principle I favour the provision in particular of some affordable housing - though I have doubts about how this might practically be provided, in terms of cost, incentives to developers, and the natural effects of supply & demand upon the cost of houses. · I am not a "NIMBY" and would not reject on principle any suggestion of extra houses being built in this village; but given the difficult topography here, highlighted by many different voices at that public meeting and admitted to both by Graham Swiss and in a phone conversation with me by Mr Doxford, I suggest the number of new homes that might be constructed in Harbertonford, and the sites on which they might realistically be placed, are severely constrained.

The key issues are access/space, provision of utilities, drainage/flood prevention, and environmental damage. With this in mind, some comments on the sites.

1. Land north of Harbertonford Primary School - at present cattle pasture. At first sight this is a useful, readily accessible open space, conveniently situated. It does, however, give onto the Old Road which, while reasonably open in the Totnes direction is still very narrow and leads to a tricky/dangerous exit onto the main A381 at Brockhills; the village end of Old Road is exceptionally narrow, with parked cars one side and a drainage gulley on the other. Development here would seem to impose an additional burden of traffic on an already difficult & congested small road. Many might also think that extending houses up the hill beyond the school, on very prominent pasture land, would be detrimental to the rural environment.

2. Land opposite Harbourne Filling Station - more pasture land. Again, apparently ready access, with (presumably) the potential for direct access to/from the A381 adjacent to existing houses. The amenity value of houses might be considered at risk, by the householders concerned.

3. Land at Mill Court, west of the Depot. Everyone to whom I have spoken has suggested that of the seven site options, this is the best or only one that seems sensible & practical. Since it is already developed, and the building in question is an old eyesore that cries out for improvement or redevelopment, replacing it with a few houses might be the answer. I do not know to what extent there is a potential flooding issue beyond the fact that any houses close to the river like this, and downstream from the dam, are potentially liable to flooding.

4. Land north of Wilma, Woodcourt Road - more pastureland. Any suggestion that this might be developed for housing is open to immediate criticism on several points. It is situated down a very narrow lane with tight turns, with all the implied problems of exacerbating the present congestion, and considerable difficulty/impossibility of access for emergency vehicles. It is adjacent to the River Harbourne, and immediately downstream from the dam. It is in the middle of the beautiful Harbourne Valley, where individual houses such as Wilma and Woodcourt Farm do not obtrude but where a group of new houses would have a most detrimental effect on the outlook and the environment. I for one would object strongly to any proposal to develop this land for housing.

5. Land south of Blacklands Farm Cottage - yet more pastureland in a very prominent and sensitive position, the biggest (1.89ha) of the seven site options. My attitude is liable to be coloured, admittedly, by my living immediately adjacent to this site: I would be extremely alarmed at the prospect of this land being developed for housing, with all the implications for damaging the amenity value - and the market value - of my home. But objectively, the site faces considerable problems. It is beautiful pastureland like that in Woodcourt Road, but even more prominent, much of it being elevated and immediately open to view to anyone entering the village from the north, so development on the higher parts would have a lamentable effect upon the outlook of the village - especially for those living east of the A381 who would look out directly onto it, whereas now they see fields and trees. It is difficult to see how satisfactory access could be made to most of this site: present access to Blacklands Farm Cottage is via a private driveway off the (very narrow, congested) Moreleigh Road; there are field gates further along Moreleigh Road, but I do not know whether those are feasible to provide ready access to the site; part of the site abutts Hernaford Lane (misleadingly entitled by the Council and Royal Mail as "Hernaford Road" giving an utterly mistaken impression) which is a narrow dirt track, a green lane and public byway along which motorbikes, quad bikes and small 4x4s sometimes pass - the new roadsign at the Moreleigh Road junction says prominently, Farm Vehicles Only. In the lower, metalled part of Hernaford Lane, congestion, parking problems and extreme difficulty of access for e.g. emergency vehicles are among the most severe in the village. I would object as strongly to any proposed development here as I would to the same in Woodcourt Road.

6. Described on the SHDC web-page as "Land between Morleigh Road & Hernaford Road, Harbertonford" - I'm sure you know this is a mistake, and for "Hernaford Road" read "Woodcourt Road". Sharing similar problems to those posed both by Sites 4 and 5, this field in addition is on a steep slope, making it I should have thought at least as unsuitable for housing development as those sites while being as potentially destructive of the skyline/outlook as Sites 1 and 5. It is impractical, unsuitable, and objectionable.

7. Harbourne Filling Station, Harbertonford - I am not sure to what exact plot this refers, but I assume it is the small area adjacent to the filling station. While not especially detrimental to the outlook or environment this does have (acknowledged) access difficulties - directly onto the main A381? - and any threat to the existence of the combined filling station & shop would be seen by villagers as very damaging indeed.

I would be happy to receive any response you care to make, and to participate in any future discussion about planning/development issues. I care very much about developments that might impact adversely upon the village, and am keen to contribute to debate. I look forward with interest to seeing what is proposed.

Yours faithfully -

Anthony Harrison, Hernaford Lane