Extraordinary Town Meeting 15th July 2009
Minutes of an EXTRAORDINARY TOWN MEETING of TAVISTOCK held in the Town Hall, Tavistock on WEDNESDAY the 15th day of JULY 2009 at 6.30 p.m.
The following were present: Cllr Mrs M Govier – Mayor as Chairman
Cllr D Whitcomb Assistant Chairman
118 members of the public
(at the commencement of the meeting)
In Attendance: Town Clerk
Chief Executive WDBC
Head of Planning and Development WDBC
1. The Mayor welcomed all present and gave a brief explanation of the operation of parish meetings and polls. She then asked the signatories to the call for the meeting to make opening statements.
2. Cllr M Harper began by explaining the opposing point of view to the Core Strategy, in that there were too many houses in the wrong place and that there were better ways of directing future development. There were objections to the new road, the lack of facilities and the financing of the railway.
3. Mr Incoll then gave the background to the LDF, and that it had to replace the current Local Plan. If no Framework was in place then the Borough would be at the mercy of developers. The Framework had been 4 years in development so far, and had gone through the statutory stages. The Government Housing Needs Survey set 977 houses per year for West Devon, yet the Framework had a target of only 220 (75 per year in Tavistock, 88 in Okehampton and 57 elsewhere in the Borough).
4. Mr Davies acknowledged that WDBC had a difficult task given the Government figures, but he did not think the plan was right. While a plan had to exist, and his group did not want houses dispersed all over the Borough, the concentration around Tavistock needed reconsidering. Hence the motion on the agenda. The Mayor read out the motion:
“The plan to develop a 750 unit housing estate on the edge of Tavistock with a link road across the Tavy Valley, as proposed in the WDBC’s document ‘Pre-Submission Core Strategy Reg 27 DPD’ is unacceptable to the inhabitants of Tavistock and should be withdrawn and that a dispersed development strategy should be re-instated”
5. Mr Davies said the turning point of the objection had been the proposed road, cutting across the Tavy valley, an AONB, the WHS and the canal. All contrary to Governmental regulations. What pressure had been put on WDBC councillors to vote against the Strategy at Town level but for the Strategy at Borough level? Cllr Pike said he went with the Strategy because of the ‘Teignbridge’ situation, where developers could have a field day. Cllr Clish-Green voted for the strategy as it was a legal requirement to have one, but was assured that it would then go out to consultation. She hoped it would galvanise the people of Tavistock to react. Cllr P Sanders said he was out of the country when the vote was made, but spoke against the strategy and voted against it at the committee stage. It was essential to have a Core Strategy, but not by creating a satellite town in the South West of Tavistock. An alternative was needed.
6. Cllr Harper asked what could and what could not be changed in the consultation document before it went to the Planning inspector? Mrs Playle responded that there had been a 4-year consultation, and the only comments now could be on the ‘soundness’ of the plan. She showed a copy of the previous plan with dispersed areas of development, but these had been overruled during the earlier consultation. Hence the Plan had already been through what was being proposed that evening. The challenge to the plan needed evidence to be considered by the Inspector.
7. Mr Bower thought that if people now had the choice between dispersed development and 750 houses in a new town they would chose the former. People were not aware of the implications then. It was thought the original plan was for 250 houses, but then a developer said give them 750 and they would build a railway. The Mayor reminded those present that there were 250 houses in the local plan now. The meeting generally did not object to 750 new houses, just 750 houses in one place.
8. Mr Mettler said the current plan was indeed unsound. It lacked robust evidence. For example what did ‘sustainability’ mean? There were 22 principles of development in Strategic Policy Statement 25, only one of which was a ‘will’. All the others were ‘should’ or ‘possible’. Kilbride had refused to provide actual ‘evidence’; but needed more than 750 houses to pay for the railway. He thought each normal house would, have a premium of £41,000 added for the railway. That was unsustainable. So far as changing the Core Strategy was concerned, the Forward Planning and Housing Committee said that minor changes could be allowed after consultation.
9. Mrs Williams said that the old Local Plan had resulted in houses crowded together with no gardens. People were concerned that this would happen again. Who would pay for the services promised such as the hospital, school and care home? It was the railway that was pushing the 750 houses. Someone must challenge all these changes to Market Towns, and a poll might put a view to the Inspector. Mr Taylor returned to the draft motion.. The document was a strategy for all the Borough not just Tavistock. It had been consulted on for 4 years. A plan was vital to control development. He asked for a plan showing the dispersed development option so people could compare. He reminded all that they still had time to comment to the Borough Council. Cllr Trew said that Kilbride had never built a railway, just some sidings. He had doubts of the way they planned to operate the single-track railway, and it was extra-ordinary the people her were being told what they had to have not what they wanted.
10. Mr Mathew thought people had not grasped the strategic needs of the matter. It took 7 years to prepare a local plan. Even after 4 years objections were still coming in at the last minute. The Inspector would think that such objections were predictable. It can only be the soundness pf the plan that is questioned, and the motion did not address that or the strategic issues. Mr Mettler returned to say that the plan was not sound according to the definitions in the document. He quoted the leader of the Borough Councils views on dealing with the Unitary proposal; being exactly opposite to his views on the Core Strategy. There had been no consultation at all on the proposal for the Road, and residents of Crowndale Farm would be hard hit by that sudden proposal.
11. Cllr Mrs Sellis questioned the self-contained policy, and wondered why the railway was necessary. It was a difficult decision but more rural development could be looked at. She wondered how many jobs had been created in Tavistock over the last 20 years? Cllr Harper wondered how many people had objected to the previous proposed development plan compared to the one for 750 houses? Was the new plan because West Devon had a preferred developer ready to go? Mr Incoll described the many industrial and commercial ventures the Borough Council had managed over the last years, but had no idea of the numbers of objectors. It was not an issue. At each stage a new level of plan was reached. At this stage only evidence-based objections about the soundness of the plan could be made. The rate of development in the town would depend on the economic circumstances and the developer. The consultation comments had been published on the Borough web site.
12. The Mayor then put the motion to the meeting. By 87 votes for, 2 votes against and 8 abstaining it was RESOLVED that the plan to develop a 750 unit housing estate on the edge of Tavistock with a link road across the Tavy Valley, as proposed in the WDBC’s document ‘Pre-Submission Core Strategy Reg 27 DPD’ is unacceptable to the inhabitants of Tavistock and should be withdrawn and that a dispersed development strategy should be re-instated.
13. There was then considerable discussion about a question that might be put to the electors of Tavistock in a parish poll. The meeting was adjourned while this was drafted. It was then RESOLVED nem con that the following question could be put:
"Do you agree that the West Devon Borough Council proposals to site 750 houses and other facilities in the Tavy Valley on the South west side of Tavistock, together with a new road, is unsound, unsustainable and therefore unacceptable?"
14. The Mayor then asked if 10 or more electors at the meeting wished for such a poll. An overwhelming majority of those present so voted.
Mayor then thanked everyone for coming to the Meeting. The meeting ended at 8. 20 pm.
Signed...........................................................
Town MayorDate...........................................................