Draft Minutes Fossoway & District Community Council Extraordinary Meeting
18th April 2017, Fossoway Primary School
Attending: Community Cllrs: Cameron Brown, Angus Cheape, Jennifer Donachie, Trudy Duffy, Carol Farquhar and Graham Pye; P&K Cllrs Mike Barnacle and Dave Cuthbert; 36 Members of the Public (MoP).
Declarations of Interest: CCllr Angus Cheape declared an interest in the development at Crook of Devon, and withdrew from the Council table.
LDP Public Consultation
Cllrs Barnacle and Cuthbert made it clear that they had no pre-conceived positions on the proposals, but were there to hear the opinions of the Members of Public present.
Blairingone: CCllr Trudy commenced the discussion by stating that the CC believes that the majority of the residents are in favour of the proposed plan. 27 positive and 6 negative comments were received by PKC. Cllr Cuthbert reminded the meeting that the school is due for review so increased housing may help it. Cllr Barnacle expressed the view that there were more people from Blairingone at the earlier review that didn’t make specifically attributable comments. In answer to a question from CCllr Donachie, Cllr Barnacle said that the development would likely be in excess of fifty houses. There were no additional comments from those present.
Rumbling Bridge: 92 comments, of which 60 were from Rumbling Bridge residents, were received by PKC. 26 individual comments objected to the proposal, and 38 supported it, with seven not expressing a clear preference. Additionally there was a petition signed by 44 people from 35 individual addresses objecting to further development. Principal objections received were that development would damage the character of the village, amenity greenspaces and setting of the gorge. Supporters specified improved car parking and other discretionary benefits provided by the developer, and that the development would improve the balance of the village.
MoP explained that they thought that the petition applied to a previous proposal which they would object to, however when the exhibition was visited it became clear that a different, more acceptable scheme was being proposed, and hence they withdrew their objection. Another MoP asked who else had changed their mind. CCllr Duffy expressed her concern that because the petition was circulated before the current proposals were made public it’s possible that people were confused. The organisers of the petition emphasised that they had made it clear which proposal they were objecting to.
MoP noted that there is already a plan in existence that has not yet been fully developed, so why should we now add other areas. The existing car parks are not signposted; if they were then additional areas wouldn’t be needed. MoP stated that there is no public parking for the Gorge at the nursing home. Cllr Barnacle commented that the “Thompson” car park was not finished at the time of the consultation meeting, but a MoP reported that it now is.
The proposed development would destroy the “green field” feel of the village. Cllr Barnacle is of the view that the previous settlement boundary was more appropriate than the currently proposed one. MoP describes Rumbling Bridge as a hamlet rather than a village, with no school, pub, etc., so unlike Blairingone it would not be appropriate to develop it, and challenged the automatic assumption that development of villages is always necessary.
MoP observed that the Thompson development of four houses occupied ground that was previously rough scrubland and the house are attractively designed and have improved the look of the village, can’t we expect that the proposed development would be the same.
MoP suggested that many other developments are ribbon-styled, whereas this one is a sensible one that would improve the heart of the village – this comment received some support. Another MoP replied that there is currently no heart to the village, and this development would not create one.
MoP pointed out that there is already a traffic problem across the bridge, and any development could make this worse. Cllr Barnacle reported that there are already plans to consider calming measures, speed limits and possibly traffic lights at the bridge.
MoP asked whether their comment had been received as they hadn’t received a reply – it was suggested that perhaps only those who applied online received responses. Cllr Cuthbert undertook to collect email addresses of those who had not received replies and would check that their comments had been received.
Cllr Barnacle summarised that the CC needs to decide whether it supports a change to the village envelope or not.
Crook of Devon: 83 comments (11% of the population) were received by PKC – there were 53 objections and 26 supportive comments. The proposal is for a fairly large development of around fifty houses, and some business use. Main objections were that it would be difficult for the village to support such an expansion, the separation between Drum and Crook of Devon would be lost, doubt about the viability of proposed businesses, and the village’s character would be impacted. Supporters suggested that the development was in an appropriate place, affordable housing would be provided, employment would be created and the community benefits were worthwhile.
MoP was concerned that this development would dramatically increase traffic. MoP suggested that the school and other facilities would not be able to support this sort of expansion, and the current school’s location is in an untenable position for pedestrian access from the proposed location, due to the road being too narrow.
MoP asserted that a roundabout provided as part of this development would be unlikely to reduce the speed of vehicles, or dissuade drivers from using the A977, and those leaving the roundabout will increase their speed to compensate for the time lost crossing the roundabout. Further were the traffic measures to be successful, the traffic would likely divert to the A91 which would be worse. Cllr Barnacle replied that unless some physical obstacle is introduced there will never be any way of slowing the traffic down as speed limits are widely ignored. MoP pointed out that there is currently no concrete evidence that the benefits from the development will help the traffic problem.
This development will contribute to Drum and Crook of Devon merging into one, and this level of development is not appropriate. Cllr Barnacle pointed out that PKC already treat Drum and Crook of Devon as one village, which isn’t necessarily correct.
A member of the development team pointed out that the number of houses at fifty is not set in stone. Cllr Duffy noted that all the developments consist of big houses. There is no opportunity for older people and new buyers to find small houses in this area. If these developments were allowed to proceed then perhaps there will be some smaller houses. MoP commented that in the absence of a bus service, affordable housing is useless. Cllr Cuthbert explained that “affordable housing” can mean small houses or “social houses”, the latter being more appropriately placed in bigger conurbations.
MoP asked for timetable of LDP2. Cllr Barnacle thought that the LDP2 document will be produced in the autumn, and then a further six weeks consultation period will follow. Cllr Barnacle emphasised that this is a zoning exercise and not a planning proposal, and hence the CC can respond by saying that an area should be zoned for development, not zoned, or zoned for mixed development with further public consultation required.
CCllr Duffy concluded by thanking Katie Briggs for her work in advertising the consultation meeting and summarising the comments. Thanks were also given to Cllrs Mike Barnacle and Dave Cuthbert for all their work.
