Extraordinary Town Council Meeting 21st October 2008
Minutes of an Extraordinary Meeting of the TAVISTOCK TOWN COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, Drake Road, Tavistock on TUESDAY the 21st day of OCTOBER 2008 at 7.00 p.m.
Present: Cllr R Pike Town Mayor
Cllr Mrs M Govier Deputy Mayor
Cllr M Harper
Cllr C Jenkins
Cllr Mrs Johnson
Cllr Mrs D Sellis
Cllr J Sellis
Cllr E H Sherrell
Cllr D Whitcomb
In Attendance: Town Clerk
Four members of the public
PUBLIC QUESTIONS.
The Mayor allowed members of the public to ask questions before the commencement of the meeting.
Question. Had the Council noticed how the local plans had expanded since the March consultation with more houses and a link road?
Response. Yes, that was the reason for this meeting.
Question. Had the Council noticed how the County Council data and information was not at a level of detail required to allow reasoned response?
Response. Yes, and noted that WDBC had made an effort to provide data but it was confusing.
Question. Questions had been asked at the public consultation (rail service frequency, traffic census) that had not been able to be answered. How can members of the public make comments when not aware of the facts?
Response. There would be another consultation in March/April 2009, and the Annual Town Meeting would be set to fit in with this.
345. APOLOGIES.
There were apologies for absence from Cllr D Best, Cllr Mrs J C Metcalf, Cllr Mrs J Ramsey, Cllr P Sanders, Cllr E D Sanders, Cllr B Trew and Cllr H Smith.
346. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST.
Councillors were reminded to declare any personal or prejudicial interest they may have in any item to be considered at the meeting. Cllr Mrs Johnson and Cllr Mrs Sellis both declared personal interests.
347. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – DRAFT CORE STRATEGY
a. It was RESOLVED to suspend Standing Orders 1.11.5 and 1.11.11.
b. Minute 315 referred. Members had resolved to debate the WDBC preferred development options for Tavistock at this extraordinary meeting. They noted that any comments on the Core Strategy needed to be with WDBC by 30th October 2008. Members were given 5 minutes to read some documentation tabled by Cllr Mrs Sellis. The Mayor commenced by stating that he believed the proposal showed a new town being created in the South, with link roads, railway stations and services moved from other parts of Tavistock. It would isolate the existing town layout. The railways would need massive earthworks as the station was situated on an embankment. It would be worse than Gunnislake.
c. All Members then spoke in turn, and were unanimous in agreeing the following comments:
(1). The proposed railway line would serve the wrong areas. Dockyards and the centre of Plymouth was not where people worked or wished to go. It would be pointless to travel to Plymouth by rail, then have to take a bus to the desired location. Far better to build a railway line to Exeter to ease travel to London etc.
(2). The Strategy only detailed large build in Okehampton and Tavistock. It would be far better to look at small sustainable developments in villages. Indeed Hazel Blears MP herself has said that we need more houses in rural village communities. Lifton had better road links and employment land available, and all in a sustainable village. Members guessed the reason for ignoring villages was the economies of scale in providing services for few large central developments rather than many small scattered ones.
(3). The Spatial Strategy plans had been drawn up in Whitehall by people with no local knowledge. Traditionally homes followed jobs, but in this case houses were being built with no-where for the occupiers to work. Houses already built were staying empty, and there was no demand for businesses to move to Tavistock. We were creating jobless neighbourhoods that might degenerate into slums. The average salary in West Devon was £17,000. It would take at least 10 times that to buy a house. Any new build must follow sustainable economic growth.
(4). Transport and traffic would remain a huge problem. The idea that only 6 lorries a day used the Callington Road was laughable. A true traffic census was needed. Okehampton had far better road links (to the A30) than Tavistock’s crowded and narrow A386, and they could easily cope with more houses and the traffic they generated. The new proposal for a link road showed it only being used for cars. The lorries and buses would still block Tavistock’s existing roads.
(5). The sums did not work out for the proposed railway. Of the 750 new houses, 40% had to be affordable. The income from the 450 remaining could not cover the cost of the railway. We already had a good 4 per hour bus service to Plymouth, and the parts of Plymouth people wanted to get to like Derriford. The railway was of no benefit to Tavistock at all. If people did go to Plymouth to spend their money then the Tavistock shops would decline.
(6). There was no mention of new play schools in the plan, though more would inevitably be needed. The mention of hospitals and schools was ‘spin’ as they were not new additions but re-located from existing areas. In fact the concept of moving might delay vital improvements in health care at the existing old hospital. More care homes would be needed too, and not located next to the sewerage works!
(7). It seemed that planners wanted to create a new housing development for Plymouth but did not want to site it in Plymouth. If it were in Plymouth then travelling and job finding would be easier. Planners kept referring to the SW Regional Spatial Strategy. That document was still in draft form and being consulted on. In it there was no mention of a requirement to build any houses in Tavistock. In any case the RSS could change post-consultation. It seemed that no one in WDBC wanted to fight the assumptions about 750 houses, perhaps because of the increased council tax take! Members wished to take WDBC to task as they were not questioning assumptions. The development plan was clearly far too big for Tavistock. One Member also commented on the visual aspect the new housing would have, as it would be seen from the Moor and spoil an attractive townscape.
(8). Members found the mention of ….a minimum figure… in the table at Page 9 disturbing. Could it be that there was no upper limit for development?
d. Members thought that the Strategy consultation was an opportunity for the Town Council to develop its vision as to how the town should be in the future. They wondered how best to put their comments across to WDBC, and whom they should get to write them up in convincing planning terms. Cllr Harper thought we needed to come up with clear evidence based alternatives, and that a small working group should write the response. That could be current points to meet the deadline plus a commitment to provide a vision statement soon. Cllr Whitcomb wondered why the double-hatted Members had not put our points across to the Borough already, and was told by Cllr Mrs Sellis that only the eight Borough members on the Future Planning and Housing Committee had been given the chance to comment. It was agreed that while the Town Council might resolve to have a corporate policy view, individual Members still had the right to put their own comments to the Borough as members of the public. Members formed a view that they should say they totally disagreed with the Strategy, but reserved the right to put forward their own version of the Core Strategy once they had consulted with the public. They had been talking to members of the public over the last few weeks and found them all to be against the proposals. Indeed, the Chamber of Commerce and other groups should be able to influence the Council’s vision document. Cllr Mrs Sellis felt we should look to our budget to find resources to engage professional help in drafting the response.
e. It was RESOLVED to reinstate Standing Orders 1.11.5 and 1.11.11.
f. On a proposal by the Mayor it was then unanimously RESOLVED that we should respond to WDBC that we were not happy with the draft Core Strategy, and found many flaws in it, and we intended to work on a study to be ready for the next consultation period in March 2009 as detailed in Page 34, para 6.1 of the Strategy document.
348. URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE MAYOR
The Mayor reported to Members on the twinning trip to Pontivy the last weekend to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the bond. He showed Members the gifts presented to the Council, and hoped to be able to reciprocate with a civic visit from Pontivy in the spring.
349. SEAL.
RESOLVED that the seal be affixed to the various Deeds and Documents to be made or entered into for the carrying into effect the several decisions and matters approved.
Rising 8.10 p.m. Signed.........……………...…..................
Town Mayor
Date...................................................