|
Back to Forward planning page To add your comment click on the 'Edit Page' link. Editing instructions will appear below the editing panel. For clarity, enclose your comments in horizontal rules thus Comments on the proposal published 30/4/2010Jan Friend writes (Friday, 2 July 2010): I have grave reservations regarding your plans for expansion, which I feel will destroy the character and ambience of this quiet Devon village. We are full-time residents of Harbertonford and have lived here for over twenty years. We understand that there is a need for housing, but question the need to expand our village by 25%. An expansion of this size, and more importantly the location of this development, is completely unsuitable for this village. It will harm the character of the village irreversibly and will cause major problems on the local road network, which are already under pressure from residents and visitors. Having witnessed the problems that the fire brigade have experienced, can you please confirm that the emergency services are happy that the Development Proposals would not impair our safety, should the need for their help be required? I attended the last two public meetings and, despite being referred back to the DPD proposals and the SHDC website, I am still unsure if the following have been undertaken, and what the results of these surveys are, in particular: 1: Traffic Assessment (Old Road)? 2: Environmental Impact Assessment? 3: Bio Diversity Study (Fields)? 4: Village Character Assessment? 5: If the garage is not to be demolished, how will access be gained? If not through the garage site it would have to be on a corner. Would visibility splays be up to DCC standards? I hope you take these views into account. I know that we need development and I expect that you may consider me a 'NIMBY'. However I moved to the South Hams from Brixham over twenty years ago, and my son and daughter live in Totnes. I really enjoy where I live and the house that we have worked hard to be in, in the village that we love. Please, please don't destroy it! Frances Padfield writes (Friday, 2 July 2010): [Paragraph numbers refer to the Rural Areas DPD] para 6.105 para 6.107 Harbertonford Mills para 6.110 On the map it is not clear where there would be car parking or access to the road. Why wait till "beyond 2016" to develop the Old Mill when it is a listed building becoming derelict and is a blight upon the village. RA18 Land to the north of village para 6.111 par 6.112 para 6.113 Where are all the facts backing up the choice of site? Where is the evidence of community participation. In spite of 2 public meetings there has been no response to the village concerns about sound infrastructure. 7.
Changes to the DPD Tim Padfield writes (Friday, 2 July 2010): [Paragraph numbers refer to the Rural Areas DPD] 6.107 What is wrong: There is no evidence given for the needs of the village. The real aim, expressed in a public meeting with a representative of the Forward Planning Office (see the minutes of 2 public meetings at www.harbertonford.org/index.php/Region/SouthHamsCouncil) is to satisfy the needs of Totnes, for which Harbertonford would make a convenient satellite town. This proposal is to satisfy targets set far from the village. It was made abundantly clear in two public meetings that the villagers are against a massive development on RA18. It would almost certainly result in a dreary clump of suburban houses filled with commuters who would motor to work elsewhere. We would prefer piecemeal development, involving local builders and local clients. Changes necessary: Present the evidence for the needs of the village. This would include infrastructure improvements to roads, speed reduction, cycle paths, allotments, access to open space, protection from flooding by runoff from the proposed RA18, provision of local employment. 6.110 What is wrong: Many villagers have expressed a wish for immediate redevelopment of the derelict mill [RA17]. The scheduling for after 2016 is, according to the spokesperson for forward planning, Bridget Green, because the owner does not respond to correspondence. This is not planning, it is timid expediency. And what is the chance of the owner responding after 2016? Changes necessary: Alter the implementation date to 'before 2016' and use the council power to force action from the owner, or bypass the owner, who is not local. 6.113 What is wrong: 50 houses on this site [RA18], excluding the filling station, whose owner has said he is not intending to redevelop it, would be a very high density. It would probably be filled with standard suburban housing, and then with commuters to other places, using cars. This is a wrong way to develop a rural community. It should be allowed to expand naturally, with local builders providing houses for local clients at a rate determined by local industries and activities. Furthermore, this particular site causes anxiety among occupiers of low lying houses that there will be flooding by runoff from this steep site. Assurances that SUD will ensure good drainage have not been backed up by site investigation by a hydrologist. Changes necessary: Reduce the size of this area, and add other areas close to the village to encourage more dispersed and varied expansion. The kiln lane area was identified by the Princes Foundation as a possibility. Serena Scrine writes: "I would like to offer a different comment from those concerned about current proposals. I agree with those who think a large block of 50 houses are too many, and it seemed to be reccommended because developers can make maximum money from a large block. I looked up several smaller sustainably built and designed housing complexes, which still had a developer but not a commercial one. One example is ecostrust which developed a small group of houses and a mixed office / cafe property at Great Bow Yard in Langport, Somerset. They have a consultancy and do work to develop other plans around the country, for people such as the parish council of a village. There is an organisation called CABE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. If you look over their website there are lots of useful pfds to download which help understand all sorts of aspects of planning and architecture. A recent one is: Simpler and better - Housing design in everyone's interest. I agree with a speaker at the last meeting who asked why cant we influence who builds the houses, do we have to have standard large companies making a 'collar of ugliness' in the village. So I am hoping people may be interested in becoming more active and aware about what possibilities there may be. In the meantime I would like to strongly suggest to the planning committee that a series of smaller housing blocks be reconsidered in several places around the village. So then new houses will be woven into the village in smaller more digestible elements. Serena Scrine Monday, 14 June 2010 David Groom writes, 1 May 2010 The latest proposals published yesterday appear to have another mapping error. This time they have dropped off the section of RA18 that is opposite the garage. It might not be an error but it would seem that if it isn't then 50 dwellings would be excessive for the site on the east side of the A381. Also disappointing is the lack of any mention of the garage as an exisiting facility. Tim Padfield's comments, Monday, 3 May 2010 6.105 ...The area centre of Totnes nearby is able to provide for many of Harbertonford's service needs. This is only valid if people can get to Totnes. There is no late night bus service and there is no cycle track. Walking is OK, but mind the barbed wire wrapped around the pots obstructing the footpath at the Old Toll House. No mention of the petrol station, which implies that it will be demolished. So that is one less community facility: no late night mars bars. 6.107 The development proposals to meet the needs of the village... What are the needs of the village, and who decided what they are? The natural expansion of families can be better done by building individual houses, with individual planning permission, as the need arises. This is an exercise in satisfying the government targets, disguised as satisfying local demand. If the new housing is seen as a satellite town for Totnes, there should be a frequent bus service, like that between Dartmouth and the new town of Townstal. The entire document is focussed on distributing houses, with very little infrastructure improvement, though other villages have been allotted town square, playing field and space for a school. 6.110 ...About 10 dwellings [on the site of the mill]; and footpath access to the village centre. It is not clear if the 10 dwellings are all within the present derelict buildings. And what is the route of the footpath? If the housing is within the existing shell, this proposal would surely be popular if implemented before 2016. At the February meeting there was strong backing for getting on with this part of the plan but we were told that was impossible because the owner could not be found. If the council hasn't found the owner now, what is the chance of finding her in 2016? 6.112 The provision of improved pedestrian safety and good pedestrian links to the village will be particularly important. Suitable landscaping measures will also be required in order to address the prominence of the site. The village has had a history of significant flood problems and substantial alleviation measures have been put in place. New development should take this issue into account and incorporate sustainable flood management measures. The improved pedestrian safety is not explained, and where are the links to the village? It seems that the pub will have to be moved back to allow safe wheelchair access to the shop. There is no mention of improving pedestrian and bicycle and bus access to the schools and other facilities of Totnes, which are cited as reasons supporting planting houses in Harbertonford. So how does this site rank high for sustainability? 'Sustainable' is also applied to the flood management measures. Doesn't the writer mean 'effective'? This document is written with a limited vocabulary of fashionable wonk words. Why not assess the flood risk and what to do about it before deciding to dump 50 houses on a sloping site above the village? Proposal RA18: Land to the north of the village Since the last draft DPD the area of RA18 has almost halved, but the number of houses remains the same. The density will be approximately the same as in Pack's Close. Much is made of the need for 'affordable' housing. One could argue that the old industrial village of Harbertonford also needs luxury houses to maintain a social balance. The promise of a footpath to the village centre is a strange detail, found consistently through the text for every site, sometimes with 'cycle access' added (but strangely no cycle access for Harbertonford which is close to Totnes). This is a strange tic recurring throughout the text, considering the lack of information on other matters. I don't see how it can be achieved without narrowing the main road, which is not mentioned. Indeed, the only consequence of building that is mentioned is the risk of rainwater runoff down the main road and Old Road. It will be easier to arrange access to the village centre for rainwater than for people. The appendix showing statistics for the entire rural area, comprising several villages, gives 0.14 ha to allotments. That is about three and a half allotments spread between all the villages. It was made clear at the February meeting that there is a need for allotments in this village, so the award of a fraction of 0.14 ha hardly represents consultation with the inhabitants or progress towards sustainable development. The general tone of the document is cold and distant decisions, using formal criteria. There is no sense of empathy for the present inhabitants, no trace of human enthusiasm or civic engagement. It promises no enhancements in the way of better communications, allotments, footpaths through the countryside, late buses, tennis courts, ice-rinks, skateboard ramps, community orchard, car-parking for the pub (for non-drinking drivers). It appears to be an exercise in connecting a landowner with a housebuilder, providing profit for both and a fast track through the planning permission system. In spite of the jargon about transparency and consultation the colourless and stilted style and the bureaucratic complexity of the SHDC on-line comment service seems guaranteed to arouse suspicion and resentment, except in those communities that have actively sought to attract more people. I have no nimby objection to the enlargement of Harbertonford but am suspicious that we will get a huddled mass of bog-standard houses whose inhabitants increase congestion without any compensating expansion in the diversity of ways of enjoying life in this community. The banality of the architecture of Pack's Close and the cinder block and pipe railing landscaping of Marl Park do not make me hopeful of seeing a charming hill town of houses fitted naturally into the slope, made of local stone quarried on site and mortared with earth scraped from the site. That would be 'sustainable'. And please, let it be free of pastiche balconies and gables and meaningless changes of wall surface texture, and interiors decorated with factory-extruded pvc period features. Comments to previous rounds in the selection process |