Agenda item

To receive any petitions from members of the public.

Mr Bridger presented a petition with over 4000 signatures to the Chair of the Council and outlined the basis for the petition, stating:

The Grand Western Canal is the jewel in the crown of Mid Devon. It offers unique access to our beautiful countryside and is a haven for wildlife and nature. The canal route has been protected from development or encroachment for the past 30 years, and the tranquillity and biodiversity of this part of Devon has benefitted enormously.

Our elected Councillors at Mid Devon District Council want to end the protection for parts of the canal area, and to open the door for protected woodlands and open areas to be developed for housing.  A developer has already submitted plans for large-scale housing right next to the canal around Tidcombe Hall. These plans have previously failed due in large part to the Conservation Area designation.

Development here would hugely damage the biodiversity of the area, and impact tourism, health and well-being, and access to nature. We need our District Council to preserve the existing Grand Western Canal Conservation Area, and improve the biodiversity of the lands, not damage our beautiful countryside.

The residents of Tiverton and Mid Devon do not want to see the Grand Western Canal Conservation area altered or reduced.

The Council had claimed the intention was for a positive step in terms of safeguarding and protecting the canal. The Conservation area was an area that was protected by a series of buildings and planning restrictions to ensure the original character was either retained or improved and its importance to protect and to conserve its integrity. 

The guidance was clear that conservation areas must be protected and enhanced by any review process and any review must be community led reflecting the importance of the area to the community and its uniqueness. The specialness was judged against local and regional criteria not national criteria. Locals and visitors were aghast at the idea that the Council, tasked to preserve the heritage assets for future generations, was seeking to undermine its protection rightly given to it all those years ago. Quoting legalisation to justify it was disingenuous and perverse, local authorities had a duty to review conservation areas from time to time but this should be done with a view to enhancing those areas.

Section 71 of the legalisation also states that the view of the public must be heard and that local authorities shall have regard to those views. Throughout the legislation, preservation and enhancement were the watch words. The guidance was clear that well managed conservation areas were a community asset; a  good understanding of what makes them special, and active management once they were designated were key to their ongoing success.

It was clear to those using the areas slated for removal, Snakes Wood and Tidcombe Hall that this conservation area had been a success. The fields and woods forming the designated area made it special to locals, tourists and businesses.

The guidance also states that the historical aspect should not require a detailed account of the area’s history but focus on what makes the area special and the impact of the history on its current character and appearance, there is emphasis on the sensory contribution to the character of the place and an aspect that many of the petitioners had reflected on. It also states that opportunities for greater public benefits, such as the improvement of public open spaces or community facilities should be delivered through the conservation of the area by expansion and not reduction.

The sole area that was mentioned in the guidance was where designated areas may no longer be justified through degradation of all or part of the conservation area. The special interest of areas may now be so eroded by piecemeal change or by single examples of poorly designed development, however, this was clearly not the case here as the preservation of these areas from development had increased the special interest thanks for the flourishing flora and the opportunities for locals and visitors to visit the canal area and the nature it supports. 

The timing of the review was curious, the reason that the Council had given for the justification of the review to the conservation area, was the Council claimed, that without a review, they would open the door to speculative applications of planners and developers to challenge. The petitioner had researched reviews of conservation areas and there were no similar challenges.

In summary of the 4000 plus signatures, the key point was, what was the point of declaring a conservation area and un declaring it, when it became inconvenient for an out of town property developer? It’s an area of tranquillity, people use the land on a daily basis and he hoped that the Council would leave the canal conservation area in place.

The Leader of the Council responded:

The leader thanked Mr Bridger for presenting this to the Council this evening and for giving our committee officers advance notice of this and congratulated him for obtaining over 4000 signatures, however the officers had not had the time to validate all of the signatures as Mid Devon residents due to the late filing of the petition. 

The Leader believed he could speak on behalf of every Member of this Council to say that at no point was the Council thinking about scrapping the Conservation Area. The title of the petition to ‘Save the Grand Western Canal Conservation Area’ was therefore misleading at best. In seeking to gain signatures, the petition used provocative and inaccurate phrases like ‘opening up woodlands and open areas to be developed for housing’. So to that end, the Leader felt to clarify for the benefit of all those people who may have been convinced to sign this petition, a few facts that were conveniently omitted from the petition details:

• It was in fact a requirement in law that the Council reviewed its Conservation Areas, something that the petition organiser really ought to have been aware of.
• It was the Local Plan that allocated land use, not Conservation Areas, again something the petition organiser must surely have been aware of as the Town Council website listed him as sitting on their Planning Committee.
• The petition also sought to stoke fear and division in the community by referencing a controversial planning application that was in fact refused by this Council’s Planning Committee, just as an earlier one had been 3 years ago. Although perhaps that reference to whip up support was not surprising since the petition was created before the Planning Committee had taken place, before the Grand Western Canal Joint Advisory Committee had met to discuss the Conservation Area review, before the two separate public drop-in events were held, and before the consultation was completed. Still, why let the facts get in the way of a good petition.
• From the feedback that had been received, both at the public drop-in events and through the discussion at the Grand Western Canal Joint Advisory Committee, the Council had heard multiple comments commending the openness and transparency around this process, and the clarity and explanation that has been provided. The Leader stated that he would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who participated or got in touch with the Council as a part of this process.

• Nevertheless, despite the many misleading or inaccurate aspects put forward to try and gain support, he recognised this petition as securing a considerable number of signatures and therefore the Cabinet would of course consider the merits of this when the item came before Cabinet in November 2024. He thanked the organisers for presenting it to the Council at this time and would remind all Members that they were very welcome to attend the Cabinet meeting in November should they wish as could any members of the public.

• Petitions were encouraged, and the response now, should in no way to deter members of the public wishing to carry out their own for an issue that they were passionate about, but the Leader asked that full and accurate details were included in future petitions to allow the  residents the opportunity to have the full details before adding their names.

Consideration was given to:

• It was the previous government who decided that all areas would be examined to see if they were still viable which was what had happened.