Agenda item

To receive any questions relating to items on the agenda from the public and replies thereto.

The following pubic questions were received:-

Barbara Downes – question submitted in advance of the meeting so a reply could be given at the meeting.

The Appraisal should be carried out every 5 years – how has this been

Missed?

With regard to Snakes Wood it is so beautiful and heavy with trees, birds, bats, deer and wildlife.  It is such a magical place.  If this was to be removed from the conservation area it would be a disaster.  People come again and again to go on the horse drawn barge and when they reach this bit it’s very magical and we would not want this to be altered.

Answer from Forward Planning Team Leader

The Grand Western Canal conservation area was designated in 1994 and had not been reviewed since. This was 30 years ago and was a significant period of time in which there had been many changes within in close proximity and affecting its wider setting – including the development of the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension.

Legislation[1] requires that from time to time to review the designation of conservation areas. Historic England’s advice[2] was that reviews should be undertaken every five years.

There was a need to safeguard the value of the conservation area through making sure the designation continues to be robust for planning purposes. The extent of the conservation area should include features that were of special architectural or historic

Goff Welchman – question not submitted in advance so a written reply to be sent within 10 working days and published on the website.

Last Thursday evening I went for one of my usual runs long the tow path of our canal.  The sun shone on the fields and trees, a heron flew across my path and a duck with her ducklings swam to the south bank to get out of our way.  A Kingfisher kept his beady eye on me from across the water and although I saw no water voles that evening they have recently been spotted by other runners and walkers.

Firstly I find it highly suspicious that the Council officers who of course benefit from increased populations and budgets as far as their careers are concerned are suddenly now attacking the conservation area just as the 5 year housing land supply is up for discussion.  I believe that any reduction in this conservation area will create open season for housing development not just the Tidcombe Hall application but for housing all along the south bank of the canal from Tidcombe to Crownhill.  Horrendous – that would certainly kill off the canal barge company

The Council have declared a climate emergency and should protect as much green space as possible, especially trees.

The Head of the National Canal and River Trust has confirmed the storms this winter caused millions of pounds worth of damage with towpaths washed away, land slips and burst culverts.

Therefore if this Council erodes this conservation area leading to a concreting over of the south bank of the canal the predicated ever increasing storms of our climate emergency could lead to flooding devastating all housing north and below the level of the canal.

Does our Council wish to face lawsuits from displaced residents who have previously warned them of the folly of any further buildings.

This conservation area should be extended not diminished in order to protect this beautiful green space which also provides our main revenue from tourism.

You may remember the attempt 40 years ago to build the massive housing estate of around 800 properties on Tidcombe Fen.

My wife who is a biology graduate with a special interest in botany surveyed the fen, found a number of rare flowers and her evidence resulted in the fen receiving its triple SI status.

Snakes Wood part of the conservation area under attack may well contain special botanicals which would have gone over by now and won’t appear again until next spring.

Therefore if our Council were to foolishly entertain the idea of reducing the conservation area they should wait until a full botanical survey can be carried out next year.

Hopefully it won’t come to that and this wholly inappropriate proposal will be dropped forthwith.

Furthermore a recent survey has identified sufficient space on brownfield sites in England alone for around 1.2 million homes so we should not consider weakening any of our conservation areas to satisfy the ambitions of a few officers.  We have a wonderful heritage to protect right on our doorstep which has just celebrated 50 years of providing pleasure to generations of locals and tourists.

It’s the duty of everyone at our Council to ensure that this pleasure remains available to future generations as well.

Over 3000 local residents who signed our petition so far agree.  Let it not be on our watch that this area is destroyed.

Victoria Pugh – question not submitted in advance so a written reply to be sent within 10 working days and published on the website.

I’d like to start by thanking members of the JAC for the important work you all do on our behalf, as custodians of our much loved Grand Western Canal.

It is a heavy responsibility that you carry
environmentally
historically
ethically
economically

As we all know, this is widely viewed as The Jewel in Mid Devon’s crown.  And we must all tread lightly here….

I’ve been doing some homework!!!
The JAC’s stated mission is
“To provide the main mechanism for the collation of LOCAL VIEWS relating to the management and maintenance of the canal”.
So thank you for inviting local people for whom the canal is such an important part of our daily lives to express our views.

Devon County Council states its aims “to maintain and conserve for the future the integrity of the GWC as a peaceful, attractive and wildlife-rich corridor that benefits LOCAL Communities”.

And one final quote regarding Conservation areas, Historic England specifically directs councils “to LISTEN to Local Views.

So we ask, why remove Conservation Area status from ANY part of the canal? Many questions remain. Amongst them, referring to the fields to the east of Tidcombe Hall for example,…Has due diligence been carried out to research historic GWC links between the Grade 2 Little Tidcombe Farm and Lower Warnicombe House, both of which connect to the canal-side fields immediately to the east of Tidcombe Hall.

55 years ago, local people made THEIR views clear when they marched along the then unrestored tow-path and fought to save the canal from being filled in and built over.
But for those 1200 local people who dared to dream of what might be, we wouldn’t be here tonight, there would be no JAC and, of course, no western section of the Grand Western Canal.

So to the Local views then in 2024.

We are hugely protective of the canal and its glorious setting. Judging by the comments on the online petition, supported by over 3000 people to KEEP the conservation areas, local people think the JAC, along with Mark Baker’s excellent team, is doing a great job in conserving the canal for everyone to enjoy.
It is a thriving site for wildlife and nature, a rare haven of tranquillity and diversity.  Something that we can all be proud of.

So members of the JAC, we ask you tonight to please fulfil your duty to protect the GWC for future generations, by voting to REJECT the proposal to remove Conservation Status from any part of the canal.

Dermott Elworthy – question not submitted in advance so a written reply to be sent within 10 working days and published on the website.

I haven’t prepared a formal presentation - instead I should just like to make the brief observation that under the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act of 1990, the council is required to review the Conservation Area as it currently applies to the canal, the Listed Tidcombe Hall and adjacent land.

Now, it commonly is thought that such considerations are confined to buildings or artefacts of historical note. But such is notnecessarily the case. I would point out that with respect to any buildings or other land in a Conservation Area, exceptional attention must be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.  This particularity is mandated in Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the Act and in this instance, must include that parcel of land to the East of the Hall and which borders the canal; land which a previous administration had the foresight to incorporate within the Conservation Area.  

Chairman, I dispute the validity of the arguments that have been advanced in support of amending the existing area. Clearly, there is an obligation to consider the current arrangements but most certainly, there is no compulsion necessarily to make any changes at all thereto and I submit that those alterations mooted are un-necessary, in several respects contrary to the aims of the Act and unwanted – unwanted as evidenced by the local petition currently exceeding three thousand objections made by those who have elected councillors to their present positions.

This is the largest response to a matter of this type that we have ever had and is illustrative of the depth of feeling shared by local people.

In the light of the foregoing, I submit that the amended plan is without merit and should not be put forward for further consideration.