The Devizes Guardians

The following is the text of a statement made at the Devizes Community Area Boards meeting on Monday 28th November 2011.  A vote was taken by the floor on the proposals and carried virtually unanimously. Councillors did not vote on this so as to protect their necessary neutrality when the plans come before Eastern Planning Committee. The two proposals are virtually identical, but it was felt more appropriate to present them as separate issues, hence the repitition of the text.

“CAB – Coate

Devizes is under threat from untrammelled development that is damaging the fabric of the community in every possible way. Our concerns are currently heightened by the proposed National Planning Policy Framework which states that there should be a predisposition for ‘sustainable development’, a phrase which implies that all development could go ahead regardless of the wishes of the local community. Housing in Devizes has expanded rapidly over the last few years and has outstripped employment opportunities. This cannot continue and any future development must be truly sustainable by being balanced with job creation within the immediate area. *

This meeting wishes to express the strongest possible opposition to the proposed development along Coate Road. If allowed to proceed, this development will extend the urban area into yet more of our countryside and will establish a precedent for further development to the east of Windsor Drive. It will generate additional traffic onto the London Road corridor and on into the town, pushing air pollution levels even further above the Government’s legal maximum. It will increase congestion which is already damaging our retail trade and put further pressure on an infrastructure which is already heavily overloaded and under-provided.

The lack of jobs in the area means that a very significant proportion of those living in such a development will commute to Swindon, Bath and beyond and as such it cannot be considered as a sustainable development.

With the above criteria in mind, it is proposed that this meeting expresses its firm opposition by a vote from the floor, to any development by Mactaggart & Mickel, or any other developer, on the site at Coate Bridge in Devizes

CAB – Roundway/Folly Road

Devizes is under threat from untrammelled development that is damaging the fabric of the community in every possible way. Our concerns are currently heightened by the proposed National Planning Policy Framework which states that there should be a predisposition for ‘sustainable development’, a phrase which implies that all development could go ahead regardless of the wishes of the local community. Housing in Devizes has expanded rapidly over the last few years and has outstripped employment opportunities. This cannot continue and any future development must be truly sustainable by being balanced with job creation within the immediate area. *

This meeting wishes to express the strongest possible opposition to the proposed assigning of strategic development land status to land at Roundway. If allowed to proceed, any development on this site will extend the urban area into yet more of our countryside and will establish a precedent for further development to the West of the site. It will generate additional traffic onto the London Road corridor and on into the town, pushing air pollution levels even further above the Government’s legal maximum. It will increase congestion which is already damaging our retail trade and put further pressure on an infrastructure which is already heavily overloaded and under-provided.

The lack of jobs in the area means that a very significant proportion of those living in such a development will commute to Swindon, Bath and beyond and as such it cannot be considered as a sustainable development.

It is the landowners, the Merchant Venturers, who have asked that this land at Roundway be designated a strategic development site with a potential build of hundreds of new houses. With the above criteria in mind, it is proposed that this meeting expresses its firm opposition by a vote from the floor, to any development by them, or any other developer, on the site at Folly Road in Devizes.

* ‘Sustainable’ does not currently have a very robust definition, but perhaps this one should be borne in mind: “No action should be taken that prejudices the options available to future generations.” On this count, both developments fail.

Judy Rose and Tony Sedgwick”

Two links to informative articles re the Proposed National Planning Policy Framework. They go some way to explaining why so many people in the Devizes Community Area are very worried about the proposed ‘presumption for sustainable development’ mooted in the Bill.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/20/house-builders-lobbied-cabinet-planning?cat=politics&type=article

http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/20/draft-planning-guidelines-housing?cat=politics&type=article

URGENT! Mactaggart & Mickel meetings

Mactaggart & Mickel, who have bought the land near Coate Bridge and are trying to get planning permission for a large number of houses on it, are holding ‘consultation’ meetings/exhibition on Monday 7th and Monday 14th November between 4.30pm and 7.30pm in Nursteed Community Primary School.

This is an opportunity to let them know your views, so please try and attend at least one of the sessions.

They have already stated that they are intent on selling off their English land-holdings with planning permission, so even if their plans are approved, they would not be the company with which the community has to deal.

The prospect of any building on that site and the subsequent effects on traffic and the other parts of the infrastructure doesn’t bear thinking about, so please voice your opposition either by attending the meetings or by writing to them at the following address:

FAO: Ken Hopkins

Strategic Land Manager

Mactaggart & Mickel

1 Atalantic Quay

1 Robertson Street

GLASGOW

G2 8JB

T: 0141 332 0001

F: 0141 248 4921

E: homes@macmic.co.uk

W: www.macmic.co.uk

The local planning consultants are RPS, and the names to ask for are Chris Simkins or Camilla Yerbury.

T: 01793 818100

E: coatebridge@rpsgroup.com

A letter from the Area Development Manager of Wiltshire Council, Mike Wilmott, may be coming through your letter boxes shortly.  It is to advise that the Merchant Venturers have submitted a planning application in respect of a Care Village on land east of Quakers Walk.  The application number is E/2011/1139/OUT, and comments are invited.

The date on the letter is 6th October, so the closing date for comments will be 26th October.  It is likely that this application will be referred to the local area planning committee, so your views should be submitted without delay.

Inevitably, such a scheme will generate further traffic, and there are serious doubts about the value of the proposals to the local community, particularly as the site encroaches on Devizes’ diminishing stock of open green space.  Devizes Guardians are opposed to this scheme on these grounds, but also, and most importantly, because we believe that all building projects should currently be refused permission until such times that the pollution issues in Devizes have been properly addressed.

Please make your views about this application known to the Council.  The plans can be viewed on the Wiltshire website:

www.wiltshire.gov.uk

where you can leave an on-line comment.

Alternatively you can use the public access PCs at the Council Offices at Bradley Road, Trowbridge.

Should you wish to view the paper application, please contact Rob Parker of the Council on 01380 734856;

or email him at

robparker@wiltshire.gov.uk

to make an appointment.

MEMBERSHIP

Many thanks to all of you who responded to the recent membership subscriptions request. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank all our Guardians supporters for the Town Council by-election success we enjoyed recently. The Guardians are entirely dependent on membership fees and personal and Committee donations for all the monies needed to maintain our organisation and to fight elections. For readers who are not yet Guardians Members, but who would like to support us more actively, please use the reply form to contact us

or email

devizesguardians@googlemail.com

with your contact details and we will get in touch.

Tony Duck, Membership Secretary

NEW GUARDIANS TOWN COUNCILLOR:  Roger Giraud-Saunders

Having been rather swept along by the tide of events, I now find myself elected as a Devizes Guardians Town Councillor for the Devizes East Ward. I’m glad we made it happen, as an extra member on the TC alters the balance of power in such a way that the “governing body” might not find things going all their own way in the future.

My thanks are offered to all those who worked towards our success, especially the voters who offered me their support at the ballot box.

The challenge now is to get a grip on all the issues in current circulation, which is tricky without being familiar with the background, but I don’t think it will be all that long before I feel able to make my voice heard at Council. Issues that arise in the future will obviously be easier as I will be in at the start.

There’s a lot to learn, but having the support of the other Guardian councillors will hopefully make the learning curve less exponential. There are, as I’m sure you’re all aware, many problems facing Devizes from many directions. The task we as Guardians face is to mitigate the potential of harm to the town where we can, or, even better, remove the threat altogether.

Roger Giraud-Saunders

“Sustainability” and Planning Blight

In view of the concerns over additional house building around the town, the Government’s proposals to exploit its ‘Localism’ Bill to promote ‘a presumption of approval of sustainable development’ has particular significance.

The very fact of the vagueness of this momentous terminology is sinister, allowing commentators on all sides to see in it both the best and the worst of possible interpretations. My own suspicion is that its true meaning is being smoke-screened in Whitehall, to fudge the differences of objective on either side of the argument. Most Whitehall illogicalities are the result of either Cock-up or Conspiracy: in this case I would go for the Conspiracy explanation. Those responsible want to please all of their political masters with an all-purpose form of words, without coming down on one side or the other.

The dangerous result will be that the housing developers and their lawyers will have a field day, tying the planning regulations into knots and costing the Council planners more than we can afford to oppose their Applications. In the Kennet days the going rate to fight a Planning Appeal was £50,000 a time, and nowadays Wiltshire is much less well funded.

What I believe the Government want us to think, is that ‘there should be a presumption in favour of any development being sustainable’, rather than that ‘there should be a presumption in favour of any development and that it should be sustainable’, which is a very different matter. However neither phrase is tough enough to withstand the aggressive lawyers used by the developers.

The draft Core Strategy for Devizes suggests 408 houses already permitted but not yet built, plus 569 more houses for the town over the period to 2026. Meanwhile most local opinion believes that the Town’s infrastructure has been stretched to breaking point by too many new houses built in recent years. The Strategy recommends no more new large ‘Strategic Sites’, so the additional ones are expected to be scattered around smaller sites in the town, although developers like Merchant Venturers and MacTaggarts are already making warning noises about challenging this to suit their own plans.

The developer contributions process is flawed: in theory, the housebuilders will be expected to deal with the deficit of infrastructure by their contributions under Planning Section 106 agreements and under the new Community Infrastructure Levy. Unfortunately the history of 106 contributions in Devizes is not encouraging. Their expenditure is not planned which often makes their outcome trivial and pointless, and they do not get fitted into a coherent infrastructure plan which can be carried out before the new housing is completed.

Recent examples have been the curious highway lighting on the Horton Road;  and the new London Road bus stop arrangements, which have to be finalised by October otherwise the Council loses the money to carry them out. These are not thoughtful or timely contributions to the Town’s capability to accept new housing estates; they are more akin to a tax on the developer.

The proposed new estates, plans for which are already being drawn up by the housebuilders, should be preceded by an adequate framework of infrastructure improvements prepared in advance. This framework should be specified in advance, in such a way that it can be parcelled out among the separate developers and financed piecemeal, whilst fitting into an overall plan.

This is a demanding task which the Council’s planning resources would find quite difficult to carry out quickly, and the developers’ lawyers will not hang about in pursuing their Planning Appeals against refusal of building consents.

Devizes Guardians

All are cordially invited to attend the Annual General Meeting which is to be held on Wednesday 2nd November at 7.30pm in the Town Hall (Cheese Hall).  The brief formalities will be followed by an opportunity to discuss the Localism Bill and any policy matters which members wish to air.

This is the text of a letter sent by Roger Giraud-Saunders to the Gazette and Herald for publication.  The letter has not been published at the time of posting,

“Yet again the town is under threat of unbridled development. The latest schemes will, if they come to fruition, add approximately 700 houses to an already overdeveloped town. The consequences will be felt by everyone in Devizes. Congestion will increase and pollution, already above levels which are in breach of EU standards, will become worse. Town centre trade will fall. Who will come to Devizes just to sit in a traffic jam?

The developers will doubtless make their normal slick presentations and will promise improvements to the infrastructure. All the usual clichés will be trotted out to try and convince people that their plans are good for Devizes. The promises they make are empty. The open land will be lost under tarmac and concrete. They will not suffer the consequences of their schemes as they move on to blight other towns and villages. Their motives are purely financial and all the incentives they offer prove to be of little benefit when the realities of more traffic congestion etc come home to roost.

Everyone in Devizes needs to protest against further developments of this nature. It may not be in your backyard, but it will affect the quality of your life and the quality of life in the town you chose to live in.

I hope you will all feel moved to register your disapproval of these schemes. The means to register your feelings exist. Sign the petition raised by Laura Mayes on her website, write to Carolyn Gibson at Carolyn.gibson@wiltshire.gov.uk.

Additionally, you are all more than welcome to voice your concerns at our Annual Public Meeting  in the Cheese Hall on the 2^nd of November 2011 starting at 7.30pm.”

To: greg@gregclark.co.uk
Subject: National Planning Policy Framework

Dear Mr Clarke,

I have responded to the on-line consultation on this draft policy, but would wish to explain my unhappiness to you personally as well.

My principal concern is the use of the term ‘presumption of sustainable development’ I feel bound to say that there is little evidence available to my planning officers as to what ‘sustainable development’ means and, hitherto, no demonstration by the local developers that they have any concern for it or understanding of it either!

There is a presumption that we have a sustainable community in Devizes (Claire Perry), because we have access to schools, doctors and other facilities. This is true but, along with a desperately poor road system, all of them are under stress. We have (fortunately) low levels of unemployment in the town – mostly low/semi-skilled jobs, but a complete lack of significant numbers of ‘added-value jobs’. Therefore, any future development must be employment-led and anticipated not followed by the appropriate infrastructure development. This does not square with your premise in the draft policy that house building will lead economic recovery!

I would add one further comment. Our Victorian forefathers gave us a lesson in sustainable development which we largely ignore these days. Along with good sewers, they gave us gardens, parks and other public open space. Today,
with councils pleading poverty and unable to purchase land, developers do have the opportunity to leave us a legacy. They choose to ignore this. At best we get the token children’s play facility and not much else. The previous administration has left us with some appalling, high density developments and, without assistance in provoking developers to provide meaningful open space, we will continue to have swathes of uninterrupted housing development doing nothing for community well-being. In this context, development on a site at Coate in Swindon is likely to be brought to your department’s attention. Can I say that I utterly deplore the approach to
development here for just the reasons I have attempted to outline.

Yours sincerely,

Nigel Carter