I preface my comments on this final version of the Neighbourhood Plan by saying that I have had no

involvement in the Plan process for the reason being that, although I live within the parish, I did not

know about it until last week, nor that I was directly affected by the proposals within the Plan. In

addition I do not believe that Government guidance on landowner involvement in Green Space

planning was followed, nor in the preparation of the draft Neighbourhood Plan. (NPPG Paragraph:

019 Reference ID: 37-019-20140306 and Paragraph: 048 Reference ID: 41-048-20140306

respectively). I therefore apologise if some of the detail and assertions do not always hit the mark,

however I have been put in the position of having to investigate how this Plan came to fruition via

the council’s Neighbourhood Plan website and from no other information.

Objection to paragraph 7.6.1

This paragraph indicates that “the community consultation identified how important existing open

green spaces are to parishioners. In addition to providing opportunities for both formal and informal

recreation, they are considered to make a crucial contribution to the rural character of the area and

the identity of the parish.”

I raise objection to the wording of this paragraph on the following basis.

I understand the community consultation to primarily mean the Neighbourhood Plan 2016 survey (in

this particular instance question 15) and the Regulation 14 pre-submission draft consultation

between December 2017 and February 2018.

The Neighbourhood Plan 2016 survey contained within Appendix B of the submitted Consultation

Statement asks at question 15 (Figure 1) “in your opinion which of these areas should be protected

for future generations or from development?”

Figure 1: Extract from the 2016 Survey - Question 15

1

Figure 2: Map reference in Question 15 - note - no annotation other than areas E,F and G referred to in Question 15

I raise objection to the wording in paragraph 7.6.1 for the reason that paragraphs 7.6.1 interprets

the community response as having identified important existing open green spaces. The paragraph

goes on to indicate that some of that existing open green space is used for formal and informal

recreation, while some makes a “crucial” (my emphasis) contribution to the rural character of the

area and further, the identity of the parish.

However, question 15 does not ask which open green spaces make a crucial contribution to the rural

character of the area and the identity of the parish. Rather, it asks which areas should be protected

for future generations or from development. To my mind, at least, question 15 seeks the opinion of

parishioners as to where development should be prohibited. Indeed, in a period of substantial

growth in and around Creech St Michael, it would not be beyond the realms of probability that a

parishioner would read and latch onto the words “protect…from development” and answer that

question accordingly. If I can read the question this way, then so could other parishioners and

therefore the question was ambiguous or indeed leading and certainly not that reported in

paragraph 7.6.1.

Elsewhere my representations to this Plan also raise objection to plan 13 in Appendix E. This is the

plan indicating the land between the railway and the canal to the East of Creech St Michael,

apparently the land referred to in the tick box in Question 15. Paragraph 7.6.1 indicates that the

community identified important existing open green spaces provide three functions; formal and

informal recreation, and a crucial contribution to the rural character of the area and the density of

the parish.

2

The land in plan 13 does not provide formal recreation. It is farmland. The land in plan 13 does not

provide informal recreation. There are no public footpaths through it. The towpath to the north of

my land has been excluded from the designation. I have not granted any express or accidental

permissions for casual recreational use of my land. I have been unable to find any landscape visual

impact assessment carried out to support the opinion expressed in this paragraph and elsewhere in

the document that the land shown in plan 13 makes a “crucial contribution” to the rural character of

the area, never mind the identity of the parish. Therefore, I have been unable to find any evidence

base that supports the allocation of the land in plan 13 as Local Green Space for formal, informal and

rural character purposes.

Further, question 15 of the Neighbourhood Plan 2006 survey proceeds to list 8 options, one of which

is “fields between the canal and railway”. I note that there were no plans associated with this

question (see Figure 1) and that responders were not asked which fields in particular should be

protected on any comprehensive plan (see Figure 2). I can therefore find no paper trail that

indicates that my landholding is what parishioners had in mind when they were answering question

15.

In this regard, I refer the Examiner to the proposed policy wording in CSM 10 where a distinction

appears to be made between the description “fields between the canal and the railway line” (plan

13) and “fields between West Monkton and Creech St Michael village” (plan 14). In the light of the

clarification description of the land only within this policy wording, I put it to the Examiner that the

description “fields between the canal and the railway line” could apply equally to the land to the

west of Creech St Michael (fields between West Monkton and Creech St Michael village) and to the

East of Creech St Michael (fields between canal and the railway line), together with other land that

I’ve indicated in Figure 4 below.

In summary, in relation to paragraph 7.6.1, I cannot see a comprehensive paper trail as to how the

results of the question asked in Question 15 of the 2016 survey resulted in the designation of my

land as Local Green Space that provides opportunities for both formal and informal recreation and

makes a crucial contribution to the rural character of the area and the identity of the parish.

Objection to paragraph 7.6.2

Paragraph 7.6.2 indicates that the community engagement generated two aims and objectives in

relation to open green spaces namely, the retention and enhancement of existing open green spaces

and the promotion of opportunities to extend existing and create new open and green spaces.

My objection to this paragraph stems from the apparent indication in Plan 9 of the pre-submission

draft Neighbourhood Plan (December 2017) which indicate that my land is an existing Local Green

Space (extract below in Figure 3). I would bring to the Examiner’s attention that the plan below

creates a distinction between “fields protected from development” shown in orange and “existing

Local Green Spaces” shown in dotted yellow. I therefore refer the Examiner to my objection to the

previous paragraph (7.6.1) as to the true/perceived meaning of Question 15 of the Neighbourhood

Plan 2016 survey which would appear to relate more to fields protected from development.

3

Figure 3: Plan 9 of the Regulation 14 document

There is no glossary to the document for me to understand what is meant by “existing Local Green

Space”. I’m not familiar with the term and therefore I have referred to the NPPF and in particular

paragraph 76 to understand the meaning of the concept and paragraph 77 for its translation to

policy. Here, it is indicated that local communities should be able to identify for special protection

green areas of particular importance to them. By designating land as Local Green Space local

communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances.

Firstly, Plan 9 indicates that my land is an existing Local Green Space. To be such, it needs to have

been designated through a local or Neighbourhood Plan. I have looked at the Taunton Deane Core

Strategy and the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Plan and can find no

reference to the designation of my land as a Local Green Space. Paragraph 76 of the NPPF indicates

that Local Green Spaces should only be designated when the plan is prepared or reviewed.

Therefore it cannot exist as the existing Local Green Space.

Therefore, in regard to the first bullet point of paragraph 7.6.2 of the Neighbourhood Plan, my land

does not form an existing Local Green Space. In regard to the second bullet point, the designation of

the land in Plan 13 cannot extend existing open and green spaces in that my land is not designated

as such. Rather, the Neighbourhood Plan seeks to create new designated Local Green Space as a

formal designation as opposed to the extension and enhancement Local Green Spaces, as they do

not exist.

4

Objection to policy CSM 10

Policy CSM 10 seeks to designate as Local Green Space on Plan 13 my land. I object to its inclusion.

My objection should be read in conjunction with my objections to paragraph 7.6.1 and 7.6.2.

My first objection is outlined above insofar as the evidence base submitted with this Neighbourhood

Plan does not indicate that there is a clear and distinct difference between the description “fields

between the canal and the railway line” as meaning specifically my land within the extensive

Neighbourhood Plan area. I have indicated in yellow below all the “fields between the canal and the

railway line” that lie within the Neighbourhood Plan area (the white line). I put it to the Examiner

that the question (Question 15 of the 2016 Survey) and the assumptions taken from its answers are

not clear and concise to allow a clear paper trail from concept to designation.

Figure 4: Land that can be described as between the canal and railway within the Neighbourhood Plan Area

Paragraph 77 of the NPPF indicates that Local Green Space designations should only be used when

three instances are met.

In this case, I can see that the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community.

However, it does not serve it (my emphasis) as required in the first bullet point of paragraph 77. The

land is private and is not publicly accessed, as opposed to the canal towpath which runs along its

northern boundary, and which sits outside the proposed designation. To be able to use this towpath

does not require the designation of my land as Local Green Space.

The second bullet point of paragraph 77 of the NPPF indicates that the green area should be

demonstrably special to the local community and holds particular local significance. I have seen

nothing in the evidence to support this Neighbourhood Plan designation that indicates specifically

what is particularly important about my land. In the same light, in regard to the third bullet point of

paragraph 77 of the NPPF, there is no landscape visual impact assessment that indicates that the

green area concerned is local in character and is any different to any other land in the vicinity.

The policy itself seems to selectively quote from paragraph 77 of the NPPF. I concede that my fields

are in reasonable close proximity to the community as indicated in the third paragraph of policy CSM

10. However, paragraph 77 indicates that green space should serve the community (my emphasis)

as well as being within close proximity to it. As previously indicated, this land is not afforded any

public access, other than the canal towpath which runs along its northern boundary (see extract

5

from the ordnance survey plan below (Figure 5) with my land highlighted in yellow and the public

footpath dotted red). It therefore does not serve the community in any useful way other than being

physically adjacent to a public footpath route which is in itself in close proximity to the village.

Figure 5: OS extract showing public footpath dotted red outside Plan 13 area(coloured yellow)

Policy CSM 10 completely omits that the green area is supposed to be demonstrably special (my

emphasis) to the local community and holds particular local significance (again my emphasis).

Rather, the policy itself indicates that it contributes to the rural sense of place, character of the area

and the general health and well-being of the community. These are not attributes described in

paragraph 77 of the NPPF, where the designation should only be used.

Further, paragraph 78 of the NPPF indicates that the policy for managing development within the

Local Green Spaces should be consistent with policies for Green Belts. Local Green Space is a

restrictive and significant policy designation equivalent to Green Belt designation, therefore it is

essential that, when allocating Local Green Space, plan-makers can clearly demonstrate that the

requirements for its allocation are met in full. This is not the case here.

The third bullet point of paragraph 77 indicates the green area is local in character. There has been

no Landscape Impact Assessment of the land that I have found. In addition, the third bullet point of

paragraph 77 indicates that the designation should not be an extensive tract of land. At some 9.53

hectares, the proposed site is an extensive tract of land and therefore fails that test in paragraph 77.

Given that the Framework is not ambiguous at paragraph 77 when it states that a Local Green Space

designation is not appropriate for most green areas or open space, it is entirely reasonable to expect

compelling evidence to demonstrate that any such allocation meets national policy requirements.

Setting aside that the Council have not demonstrated that my land is not an extensive tract of land,

no substantive or compelling evidence has been presented.

6

Paragraph 89 of the NPPF indicates what might be acceptable development in the Green Belt. The

fourth paragraph of proposed policy CSM 10 appears on the face of it to be a positive planning

statement i.e. proposals that only result in the loss of erosion of the existing Local Green Space will

be resisted. However, the reality of this is a blanket ban on development. There is no indication of

the very special circumstances where development would be considered acceptable as outlined in

paragraph 77 of the NPPF, other than the final paragraph of policy CSM10 which indicates that the

improvement of Local Green Spaces for use by the community will be supported. This, however,

would conflict with any proposals (not just non-community proposals) aspiration of the previous

paragraph of the policy as even community proposals would result in the loss or erosion of the Local

Green Space in some way.

My land is outside settlement limits, in open countryside for planning purposes, and is therefore

protected to a reasonable degree for its own sake. Therefore, to seek to protect it as if it were a

green belt would be superfluous.

There is therefore direct conflict with national policy meaning that the Local Green Space Policy

and its Plan in the Neighbourhood Plan do not meet the basic conditions under paragraph 8(2) of

Schedule 4B and that national policy did not permit a failure to meet policy requirements to be

balanced against other considerations when designating Local Green Spaces.

I note with interest that the evidence base (Green Wedge Assessment April 2018: WYG) purporting

to sustain the inclusion of land within the draft document as Green Wedge (draft policy CSM 11)

only carried out desk-based assessment of my land. It is noted on page 8 of that document that of

the three areas identified as being potential green wedge land, my land (part of Area 2) did not

appear to form part of the original site visit exercise in December 2017. Whilst it is not clear within

that document why a site visit for Area 2 was not carried out, it is clear that my land and that

generally within Area 2 did not conform well to the objectives of a green wedge designation. The

conclusion drawn on page 18 would appear to indicate that the land was more appropriate to be

designated as Local Green Space to “ensure that its recreational and ecological value is retained and

strengthened”. But it had already been done so by then (it appeared in the Regulation 14 document

in December 2017 when the WYG report is dated April 2018). The summary conclusions on page 23

indicates that “Area 2 provides a potentially significant contribution in terms of biodiversity and

recreation opportunities, which is more appropriately addressed through policy CSM 13 and TDBC

Core Strategy Policy CP8.” This evidence appears to put the cart before the horse to obliquely

substantiate a different policy than the one examined by the report. In addition, the assessment

within the WYG report relies on historic ecological surveys.

In addition to relying on an outdated ecological survey, which referenced a completely different

quadrant of the village (in the NW) to where my land is located (in the SE), the WYG report

spuriously makes reference to the fact that the Area 2 hedgerows … ‘will all provide a suitable

habitat for a range of protected species’. However their desk based report provides no evidence or

weight to support the enormity of this statement, nor any evidence why these hedges differ from

any other hedgerow in the entire NDP area.

In a logical progression of the reasoning process, the irrelevant ecological reference and the

unevidenced ‘protected species comment’ seem to have been drivers for the conclusion that a

‘Significant’ weighting was appropriate to ‘Wildlife value’, which notably was the only ‘Significant’

finding in the Area 2 assessment. In turn, the ‘Significant’ weighting seems to be the driver for the

Overall Comment that ‘The area’s inclusion within Policy CSM10 (local green spaces) will ensure that

its recreational and ecological value is retained and strengthened’.

7

In summary had the WYG report been ‘held to account’ on these two specific points, the ‘Significant’

rating may have been reduced, and the Overall Comment within the report been different, ie NOT to

reference my land being included in CSM 10 on the basis there was insufficient ecological evidence

to justify its inclusion.

I continue to attest that had I, as the landowner, been contacted, (as per NPPG guidance), I would

have challenged the WYG report at an earlier stage than where we find ourselves today.

Other matters

Without diluting the strength of my objections in regard to 7.6.1, 7.6.2 and all of policy CSM 10 and

its associated plan 13, I have grave concerns about not only the evidence base behind this

document, its ability to contribute to sustainable development, but also its consultation.

In these regards, I draw upon the guidance set out in the NPPG and, in particular to the desire to be

inclusive and open in the preparation of the neighbourhood plan and to ensure that the wider

community is kept fully informed of what is being proposed, is able to make its views known

throughout the process, has opportunities to be actively involved in shaping the emerging

neighbourhood plan and is made aware of how these views have informed the draft neighbourhood

plan. (Paragraph: 047 Reference ID: 41-047-20140306)

Whilst I’m passionate about the village of Creech St Michael, and support the principle of the

Neighbourhood Plan having lived here most of my life, I cannot support this aspect of the Plan. At

no point have I, as landowner, been approached by any representative of the Parish Council or its

consultants or Taunton Deane Borough Council in regard to the potential designation of my land as

Local Green Space. Appendix A of the consultation statement submitted with the plan does not list

myself with the previous landowner as consultees. We were not consulted as part of the initial

survey in 2016, or the Regulation 14 consultation in 2017/18. I note from the consultation

document that a further consultation with “interested parties” occurred between 13 March and 3

April 2018. I would have thought that, being the landowner of a proposed designation, I would be

considered at least an “interested party”. After all, it is not that difficult to digitally ask for a copy of

title deeds of the designated land so that direct information can be given to landowners.

The minutes of the Neighbourhood Plan panel’s meeting of 20 February 2018 assist in understanding

how such low-key consultation was carried out (extract below).

8

Here, after the consultation period closed, the minutes indicate that 190 residents who had

previously registered to be kept informed, together with all employers and everyone who submitted

planning application the parish in the last year were emailed notice of the consultation. I was not

9

aware that the Parish Council was embarking on a Neighbourhood Plan, nor was I aware of

2017/2018 consultation and therefore was not a position to forward my email address for further

notification. I’m not employer in the parish and I have not had the benefit of submitting a planning

application in the relevant period. A modest total of five and a half hours of public consultation

events were carried out. I’m not a member of the Facebook page. Therefore, having missed some

kind of initial consultation, I wasn’t on the database for the remainder of the Neighbourhood Plan

process, nor was it brought to my attention when it became apparent that I would be a direct

“interested party”.

Here in lies my main concern in this regard. Paragraph: 048 Reference ID: 41-048-20140306 of the

NPPG indicates that landowners should be involved in preparing a draft neighbourhood plan and by

doing this Parish Council will be better placed to produce plans that provide for sustainable

development which benefits the local community whilst avoiding placing unrealistic pressures on the

cost and deliverability of that development. I would agree with this approach, but have found that it

hasn’t been followed.

It is also rather unfortunate that it is reported in the minutes above that any lack of response to the

Regulation 14 consultation was interpreted “as a proposals having broad support”. From my own

point of view, this clearly is not the case. The lack of response is instead due to the lack of

knowledge about the consultation on any draft proposals.

I’m having difficulty understanding how the process has been transparent but I’m grateful now for

the opportunity (albeit at the final stage) to voice my objection to the designation and clarify that,

on no uncertain terms do I propose to make the land available for public access “for the general

health and well-being of the community”. My land is agricultural fields. It is not a Ramsar site, SSSI,

or SPA. There is nothing special about its current biodiversity interests (even when the WYG report

refers to an outdated survey from 2012, and which was in relation to a completely different part of

the village). I will not be carrying out extensive planting or excavations for wildlife ponds so that my

land can make “a potentially significant contribution in terms of biodiversity and recreation

opportunities” and there is nothing in this policy that would make me do that to affect that aim.

Indeed, the Canal and River trust confirm that they own all the hedgerows adjacent to the canal

which form the boundary of the land to the north and Network Rail confirm they own and have a

legal duty to maintain the southern boundary. I own a hedge to the East and the canal car park

owners (the Council) own part of their boundary. On that basis, virtually none of the hedge

boundary around the land is affected in any way by green space designation and a multitude of

landowners in regard to boundary hedges is not conducive to providing significant wildlife habitat

potential.

In summary, I object to the inclusion of my land within policy CSM 10 and the associated plan 13 in

Appendix E of the draft Neighbourhood Plan. I firmly believe that the apparent community

support of the designation of my land as Local Green Space has stemmed from the leading

question asked in question 15 of the 2016 survey. Here, people were asked where did they want

to restrict development, but were not able to freely express what open/green spaces where

important to them throughout the Neighbourhood Plan area and why it was important to them. I

also believe that the general description the “fields between the canal and the railway line” does

not relate solely or concisely to my land. The general emergence of a plan (plan 9) for consultation

in December 2017 generated “not a significant number of responses” (Neighbourhood Plan panel

minutes 20 February 2018). I believe this to be due to the lack of a more comprehensive

consultation exercise and should not be considered “as the proposals having broad support”

(Neighbourhood Plan panel minutes 20 February 2018).

10

Other than a desktop assessment carried out somewhere around the beginning of this year by

WYG in regard to the land being designated as green wedge (as opposed to Local Green Space)

there is no evidence base, including landscape visual impact assessment, to indicate how the

proposed designation complies with paragraph 77 of the NPPF. There is nothing demonstrably

special to the local community about not being able to walk over my land for recreational

purposes or it’s very general agricultural appearance with restricted richness in its wildlife through

farming practices. To this end, I strongly contend that there is direct conflict with national policy

meaning that the Local Green Space Policy and its Plan in the Neighbourhood Plan do not meet the

basic conditions under paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B and that national policy did not permit a

failure to meet policy requirements to be balanced against other considerations when designating

Local Green Spaces.

11