PC Submission

1.1 You will be aware of the grave concerns that have been expressed by our community regarding the nature and extent of the development of this site.

1.2 The Parish Council, as representatives of the community, therefore submit the following information which we request be given full and thorough consideration By the Planning Officers and the Planning Committee.

HISTORY

2.1 Ten to twelve years ago there was a demand for some modest development in the village to accommodate local needs and to support our limited amenities. The Parish Council negotiated with the Borough Council for some land to be allocated for future development. We informed West Devon Borough Council that we considered the need to be of the order of about 12 houses over several years.

2.2 Eventually the site to the north of Meadow Rise was identified as suitable and in 2000 West Devon Borough Council announced that the site would be included in the Draft Proposals for the Local Plan.

2.3 In 2005, after the usual consultation stages, a specific area of 0.8 ha of the field to the north of Meadow Rise was incorporated into the Local Plan (page 63/64 4.60 Policy H17). However, regardless of our advice that we needed 12 houses, the Local Plan stated that any development should be at a minimum density of 30 houses per hectare.

2.4 This equates to 24 houses thereby doubling the number we had advised. A number we had arrived at using informed local knowledge.

2.5 During the period of the adoption of the Local Plan another site on the opposite side of the road was granted exemption status and given Planning Permission for 4 houses expressly for local applicants.

2.6 Also during this period 6 other houses have been built or granted permission as infill to the village.

2.7 The modest growth we envisaged and anticipated ten years ago has therefore been achieved.

DEVELOPMENT DENSITY

3.1 In April 2007 an exhibition was staged in the village by the potential developer of this site to give the community an opportunity to express their views on the proposals.

3.2 The response was resounding, clearly stated and unanimous:- the number of houses proposed was far too large.

3.3 Those responses are attached to the application and give eloquent and articulate evidence of the strength of feeling against the number of houses proposed.

3.4 It should also be noted that the developer claimed that the site was 0.9 ha. and not 0.8 ha. as it should be.

3.5 We understand that suggested densities for new developments derive from Government National PPG’s . These range from 30 to 50 houses per hectare and were arrived at to apply to urban and brown field site situations.

3.6 Any development in rural locations would, of necessity, be the lowest density

3.7 It must be remembered that the site area is 0.8ha. At 30 per hectare this represents a total of 24 houses.

3.8 In the Planning application the applicant has exaggerated the site area still further and now claims it is 0.94ha and that the density is “a little over 37/ha”. This is incorrect.

3.9 35 houses on the site of 0.8 Ha equates to a density of 43.75 per hectare. This is approaching the top end of the scale even for urban situations and therefore is far too high.

DESIGN

4.1 A plan showing a proposal for 35 houses on the site has been provided by the developer’s Architect.

4.2 Such a dense layout is a total over development of the site and, contrary to PPS3, is totally un-related to the adjacent area of Spreyton which has an open nature comprising larger properties.

4.3 This plan shows a layout which is of an entirely suburban nature and as such is wholly inappropriate to a rural location.

It is typical of so many of the recent developments which have been “bolted on” to other villages and done so much harm to the appearance of the Devon countryside.

4.4 The Developer claims “we have chosen to reflect the traditional cottage appearance within the scheme”…….”which sympathetically reflects the character of the village”.

However the centre of the site is dominated by a very large brick faced, three storey block of flats.

There are no three storey buildings in the village and very few buildings that are brick faced.

They claim that this building will be a “landmark”!

It is not a landmark but a blot on the landscape.

It is so different from any other building in the village in its massing, design, detail, and scale that its massive presence and appearance bear no relationship the village and is quite unacceptable.

A building of this nature would only be appropriate in a densely built up urban location.

4.5 In July a proposal to build a single detached house in Spreyton was refused permission by West Devon Borough Council.

The refusal referred to Policies H23, H28 BE11 and structure plane CO6. The reasons for refusal were that the massing, design, and detail failed to observe the local distinctiveness......and that it was an incongruous development unsympathetic to surrounding development.

This was West Devon Borough Council’s considered response to one house.

Multiply that by thirty five inappropriate houses and the effect on the village would be catastrophic.

4.6 The provision of open space within the development is far too small,

4.7 We trust the Local Planning Authority will insist that any scheme for this site which is in a designated “Area of Great Landscape Value” will need to be in scale with, and show due consideration to its rural location beside this ancient linear hilltop village.

HOUSING

5.1 West Devon Borough Council’s “Housing Strategy 2007- 2010” states in appendix 3 – Priority Development- table that in Spreyton there is a need for 6 houses in the “affordable” category. Given that all new developments have to contain 35% of such category housing this means that a development in Spreyton should total 17 houses.

LOCAL FACILITIES

6.1 Paragraph 4.59 of the Local Plan states

“Spreyton is one of the Borough’s more remote settlements………….Facilities may be marginal”

To expand on that statement it must be understood that:

6.2 There is no public transport.

6.3 The school is almost at full capacity. In September 2007 there will be 40 pupils and the total capacity is 42.

There are no available buildings to accommodate expansion nor is there any space on which to construct new buildings.

6.4 The existing sewerage system through the village is a combined system taking foul and surface water. The size of the system means that in periods of heavy rain, which are now a common occurrence, the pipes fill and “back up” the system. Regardless of any work done to the treatment works at the end of the system it cannot cope with another 35 houses.

6.5 The shop closed down on the 21^st July 2007

6.7 The Post Office closed down on the 21^st July 2007

6.8 Paragraph 4.59 also states that

“some limited new development geared to local needs could be appropriate”.

35 new houses clearly does not constitute “limited development”.

SUSTAINABILITY

7.1 We are all being urged to a sustainable way of life. To save the planet, embrace green issues, reduce carbon emissions. It is for these reasons that barn conversions and individual new houses in rural areas are not acceptable because they would increase traffic to unacceptable levels. How then can it be sustainable to locate so many houses in what is accepted to be a “more remote settlement”?

7.2 Developers should be urged to incorporate all possible “green” and eco-friendly systems into their buildings. There is no mention of such proposals in the Design and Access statement

7.3 It is proposed that a large proportion of these houses should be “affordable”. This means houses for those on limited income probably without transport. Why place them in remote rural areas distinctly lacking in public transport?

7.4 The transport statement accompanying the Planning Application paints a picture of a community that consists predominantly of house-bound unemployed or self employed people who barely venture out side the Parish boundary except on bicycles. This is a totally unrealistic viewpoint.

The layout shows that sixty two places for cars are to be provided and it is assumed that many or most of these will be used. However it is claimed that “the level of resultant increase in traffic on the local roads would have minimal impact and is not expected to have any effect on highway safety.”

We disagree strongly and have grave misgivings about a new access for so many vehicles emerging on to such a narrow road.

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

8.1 Whilst this document is still only at consultation stage it carries much information and weight regarding the current thinking on the “Issues and Options” for “Site Allocation”.

In this respect it shows a turn-around in approach to the old Local Plan.

8.2 Para 2.4 states:

“the development of new housing……can also lead to pressure on existing educational facilities…..and can lead to more traffic on local roads. “Therefore it is important that…………..development does not create new problems”.

8.3 After acknowledging that the bulk of development will be in Okehampton and Tavistock,

para.6.2

states “many villages in the Borough have been assessed for their environmental, economic and social sustainability along side their capacity for additional residential development”

Government PPS1 states that for development to be allocated in a specific location it must meet these requirements.

WDBC have identified ten settlements referred to as Main Villages which do meet these requirements, Spreyton is not one of them.

8.4 para.6.3

then identifies a lower level of possible development referred to as Small Scale, mainly for affordable housing.

Five further villages are mentioned, Spreyton is not one of them.

8.5 APPENDIX 3

para.1.3 states:

“Each of the settlements in West Devon with a defined settlement boundary has been assessed for its suitability to accommodate residential growth”…..

“A full appraisal of accessibility, level of service provision, public transport has been undertaken”…….. to formulate whether or not residential development would be sustainable.

para.1.5 then identifies fourteen such sites plus five others which are suitable for local housing needs only. Spreyton is not one of them.

8.6 para. 1.7 however does refer to Spreyton.

It is described as small, relatively remote and having a basic range of facilities which, as has been shown, are now reduced still further.

It is acknowledged that a site for “about 24” dwellings was allocated in the Local Plan but accepts that there are infrastructure difficulties which could prevent development.

8.7 Although this document is not yet in force it provides strong guidance for the way ahead and should be taken very seriously when considering the application submitted for the Meadow Rise site in Spreyton.

8.8 A poor decision made now and arrived at by ignoring the new approach to Planning will have a severe effect in the future.

CONTRAST

9.1 There is currently a proposal to build a large number of new houses in Okehampton which has raised many eyebrows and caused concern.

9.2 The proposal will increase the town’s housing stock by 20%.

9.3 Okehampton has all the facilities and amenities of a thriving modern town: Good transport links, Shops, Cinemas, Schools, Hospitals, Doctors, Restaurants, Sporting facilities, Parks, Pubs, Clubs etc, etc. and yet it is still concerned by the threat of a 20% increase.

9.4 By contrast “remote” Spreyton can offer very few facilities and is expected to cope with the prospect of an increase of 46%!

CONCLUSION

10.1 Too many of our rural communities have suffered the injustice of inappropriate and over-sized developments “tacked on” to them.

10.2 We are not against some development in Spreyton but consider that to build so many houses in this location would be an abuse and not in the best interests of good Planning.

10.3 The English countryside is unique and must be preserved at all costs. However there is currently so much pressure to use and abuse our green and pleasant land that it stands in constant danger of vanishing under unwanted and unlovely developments.

It is generally accepted by Public and Planners alike that these large and wholly inappropriate developments that have been forced on to so many villages have been an unmitigated disaster and have ruined the countryside.

Take this opportunity to stop the rot and preserve our heritage before it disappears forever.

10.4 The Parish Council object in the strongest terms to this application and we urge you to reject such a gross over-development of this site.

10.5 We request that we are kept fully informed of its progress and can take an active part in the decision making process.