Minutes of the meeting in Harbertonford Village hall, 19:00 to 21:30

Chairman Bob Tildesley

minutes by Cat Radford and Tim Padfield, supplemented with attached refined discussion reports composed after the meeting.

77 people attended.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the draft neighbourhood plan (April 2014), taking into account also the many comments received at the exhibitions and by email.

All the comments received at the exhibition, and up to the 19 April, were printed out and posted on the wall.  There is a full list of the comments on this website.

---

Geoff Broom started the meeting by presenting an account of what the neighbourhood plan can and cannot do.

Members of the subcommittee summarised the comments made at the recent exhibitions, including emails received up to 19th April.

Housing – Frances Padfield

Thirty nine percent of responses concern housing. There is considerable acceptance that some new housing would be good for the parish, depending upon good design, placing,affordability and meeting local needs. Not all the proposed sites are welcomed and a sizeable minority of responses from Harberton consider the village completely unsuitable for any development at all. Many in Harbertonford consider the 50/60 houses proposed by South Hams Council to be excessive for the village. The Old Mill is the favourite site in Harbertonford. The dominant concerns in both villages are that more housing would both increase the risks of flooding and the amount of traffic. Development at Follaton is generally considered positively. One new site has been suggested:the field below Tristford Farm.

Here is an attempt to give a popularity rating to each site.

Notes: * indicates a site already in the SHDC allocation or offered to the recent SHDC call for sites.

Calculation: add up: strongly support x 2, support x 1, subtract: oppose x 1, strongly oppose x 2. Add together H’ton and H’ford responses.

This elementary statistic is offered merely as a hint for further debate.

Transport – Tim Padfield

Eight percent of the responses are on this topic. Moving the Harberton bus stop attracts three favourable mentions and one against. One comment promotes using the bus instead of a bicycle. Several of the housing section responses identify the narrow roads around Harberton as a reason for not building more houses. In Harbertonford there are complaints about the A381 noise and danger. Parking is also demanded. There is one proposal for an eventual bypass.

Business and IT – Tim Padfield

Four percent of comments are on this subject. Pressure for high speed broadband (by cable rather than wireless) to support small specialised industries and consultancies. The diversification policy should exclude solar panels.

Social amenities – Geoff Broom

The two responses received stated that further consideration should be given to supporting community recreation and local facilities.

The built heritage – Geoff Broom

One response calls for the highest standards of build quality and energy conservation, while the other suggests a more relaxed policy with regard to lesser listed buildings with more help to the best examples.

Rural environment – Tim Padfield

Eleven percent of all comments concern the rural environment. The proposals find favour, though one comment questions the exact wording of RE2. There is good support for more access to nature. One person remarks on the absence from the exhibition of the special area of conservation for bat flypaths. [Editor’s note: the bat flypaths are described on this website on the wildlife reserves page]. Protection of the Harbertonford rookery is advocated and, far above that, protection for our view of the stars.

Sustainable energy – Ginny Davidson

The vast majority of responses to the Neighbourhood Plan have commented on the sustainable energy section and below is a very brief synopsis of the trend.

Overwhelming rejection of the current draft for sustainable energy, based upon the unanimous negative response. Majors on landscape impact, proliferation and size. ‘Community’ benefit questioned.

Solar: Negative comments concerning loss of land for food production, proliferation, blighting the landscape, impact on tourism. No local benefits (employment, energy). Damage to wildlife.

Wind: 50m too large, visual impact too great. Already debated and rejected by overall community. Why Presumption for wind and solar?. Only benefits landowner. Damage to wildlife, tourism. Wind Resource needs to be proven. 15m or 25m more suitable for landscape.

Positive: Solar on Roofs. New Buildings. Brown Field Sites. Biomass – subject to replenishment of woodlands. Two positive comments for wind and solar were subject to grave concerns re current proliferation or large turbines (not specified size)

---

After these summaries, people arranged themselves around five tables to discuss the draft plan chapters: Housing, Transport, Environment (built and natural), Business and society, Sustainable energy. Each group had the pages from the exhibition relevant to their topic.

After twenty minutes a bell was rung to allow people to change tables. This happened once more so everyone had the opportunity to discuss at least three of the topics, though people also moved around between bell strokes in an informal re-arrangement. There were inevitably side-conversations within sub-groups, so some opinions escaped mention in the reporters’ summaries.

After a short interval for the reporters to prepare their summaries of the discussions, the meeting re-convened to hear the summaries.

The summaries below are not all verbatim, as delivered at the meeting; some have been refined at leisure to ensure that no opinions were missed in the rush to report.

---

As recorded by Cat Radford at the meeting.
Refined reports are added at the end of these minutes.

– Summary of discussion by Nick Williams and Frances Padfield, presented by Prana Simon.

A lot of responses on specific sites, but for the purpose of this summary we won’t go into specific comments on individual sites.

Comments were generally supportive for mixed development: comprising large and small homes, affordable housing, housing for older people and younger families and rental properties. Please check list inclusion.

Mixed response to the provision of parking spaces – some say that two parking spaces per house is more than needed and some believe it to be a minimum. Generally the response to the concept of one car per bedroom was negative.

Some proposed development sites could become pay and display sites for parking.

Flooding was voiced as a problem/concern and a report should be requested from an independent agency prior to signing off the plan. A report from the Environment Agency would be preferred.

Small site development was preferred, not big sites of 60 homes.

There was a positive feeling towards development in the field below Tristford Farm.

In developments in which there would be no gardens provided, communal gardens or a collective amenity for relaxation could be created – a collective amenity like a park.

Increased tree planting to offset these developments would help this amenity (for relaxation) and flooding.

All schemes should be small and respect local character.

Summary of discussion by Jackie Clayton

We had more comments about Harbertonford than about Harberton.

Harbertonford

One of the big issues was the bus service, which has been improved recently in the daytime but it needs to be improved in the early morning for commuters in the Kingsbridge direction particularly. It was recently estimated that 30 children are travelling to Kingsbridge Community College in the mornings and they have to be taken there by alternative means. An earlier bus would be great.

No electronic bus signage system please.

Lack of evening buses (in both villages) is a problem, particularly for young people, parent pickups and taxis.

A suggestion that perhaps one bus company could provide that evening bus service?

The flow and speed of traffic in Harbertonford is considered a big issue. Support for both widening and narrowing the road to solve the problem. It needs thinking about as it is a big issue.

Kiln Lane to open as a footpath for safety reasons??

Safety down Bow Road and Old Road is a priority and needs to be protected by signage and by not allowing such heavy traffic down there.

Comment that if roads are designated cycle ways this can attract funding for upkeep.

Car parking in both villages was mentioned. It is a problem in both – what do we do about it? Some thought more cars per household some fewer. If we increase car parking maybe that will attract more cars? If we have more car parking where could we do it? At the village hall and football field in Harberton? This should be taken up with those organisations.

The car park at the village hall in Harberton does good service, car parking in the roads is a real issue. Should think more about car sharing and e-bikes provision in Harberton. E-Com cars have been looking for extra sites around Totnes so that is possible.

Other people felt that extra car parking within the village could provide an economic benefit.

Brockhills exit alteration suggestions were made.

Harberton

Harberton’s demand for public transport is not being met. If there is nothing provided then people don’t use it. If there were more provision perhaps more people would use it. A better bus service on the Plymouth road would be good, particularly if there is to be new development in that area.

The new bus stop is a good idea, but there would need to be thought given to footpaths leading to it and there is mileage in redeveloping the corner. Could this be a condition of planning permission in that area?

2 comments about proposed bypasses –
1. Negative response to the proposed bypass at the back of the village as it would impact badly on house values and enjoyment for people living there.
2. There would be great value of a bypass from the a38 at Dipford to Halwell and Morleigh.

Summary of the discussion by Ginny Davidson

Huge number of comments:

Most of the comments relate to the beacon [?] development in the parish.

Many comments were about the impact of the character of the environment and industrialisation of the landscape.

Why the focus on solar and wind energy, and none on hydro, geothermal, or anaerobic digesters?

Positive comments for solar on roofs of industrial buildings/in industrial areas.

Why is it not standard to include solar panels on roofs in new developments?

If we are going to be doing any of these renewable energy initiatives, is there an ethics issue of a Parish Council deciding for or against new development when they are also receiving funds for the Parish from those developments?

What happens to the land once solar panels have been on them for a period of time? What will happen now that subsidies for wind turbines are being reduced?

Size and scale is the most concerning issue. Most people were asked their opinion about the plan as it stands at the moment, and most replied that they wanted it to be re-looked at.

Summary of discussion presented by Diana Crann

It is time that Glanville’s Mill was developed. The Parish Council has been trying to open dialogue with the owner for 7 years and have been in touch with him but it hasn’t yielded any result. Many of the buildings are deteriorating somewhat and there are concerns that they are unsafe.

Regarding business units, requests were made for affordable small business units and a hub for facilities (including photocopying) and to provide a social focus.

Farm diversification – there is farm diversification in the Parish which is not very popular. Some farmers are finding it quite beneficial and the Parish will be getting a community benefit from this diversification to benefit the whole community. Something to think about.

There was a call in Harberton for community composting. There is such a scheme at South Brent and one in Ashprington that is very successful. It was mentioned that an area of the playing field near the car park could be used.

Calls were noted for clay pigeon shooting, tennis courts and an extra pub (for Harbertonford).

Summary of discussion by Christine Caunter

History, built heritage.

The policies as they stand in the draft are very wishy washy and don’t say much.
A wish was noted to preserve and maintain the green lanes as our heritage.
The square in Harberton should be preserved as part of the village’s heritage and made a more attractive area.

Rural
Harbourne trail – don’t spoil it with views of solar panels and wind turbines. We want it to be a pleasant experience as well.
Request for more permissive pathways into the landscape.
A suggestion for a village orchard between the dam and the village.
It is a high value landscape. Perhaps by changing the nature of the landscape to preserve it further it could become an AONB.
2 comments against canoeist and kayaks going down the Harbourne, with regard to safety.
There was a comment made against the footpath along Kiln Lane.

---

Geoff Broom rounded off the meeting by describing the next steps in the process:

The neighbourhood sub committee will revise the first draft plan to take account of the comments received from the exhibition and from tonight’s meeting.

In taking forward the revised draft, we will contact relevant agencies to take advice on technical matters raised in the comments, such as flooding risk.

The revised draft will then be presented to the Parish Council, to seek their agreement for a further round of public consultation in which documents will be circulated to all households in the Parish.

A final draft will then be prepared in the light of any further comments and proposals received, for approval by the Parish Council.

The final version will then be forwarded to South Hams District Council for evaluation by an independent inspector followed by the holding of a parish referendum.

Parishioners are encouraged to put proposals and comments onto the Neighbourhood Plan web site at harbertonford.org

The site also contains an archive of minutes of the sub-committee and the comments received from the public.

---

The meeting closed at 21:30 with a vote of thanks to Geoff Broom for his hard work in preparing the exhibitions and this meeting.

---

The group discussion reporters only had a few minutes to prepare their summaries. Reports refined after the meeting are given below.

by Prana Simon

First, we need a consultation report from the Environment Agency on the parish’s riskiest areas re: flooding.This, so we understand where the best geographic areas are for development and new buildings. In a parish like ours, with our villages along watercourses, the possible flood impacts due to increased development are also increased. It is vital to manage our future via mixed development, and with this perspective in mind.

Second, we need a mix of affordable housing development for the ageing population, renters, and young (or old) local people trying to buy for the first time. We need a mix of sizes of home as well – large and small – to accommodate different needs of community households. Each new development should be small in dwelling numbers, respect local character, and be of minimal environmental impact. Appropriate transport infrastructure needs to accompany each development.

With each new home, two parking spaces are vital to allow for multiple earners in each home. This parking could be near homes as well well as driveways, but off-road preferable – possibly essential in some areas. Some of the offered sites for housing could be used instead for carparks (pay & display) to alleviate parking congestion (ie dysfunction) in both village centres. Additional public transport links should be part of any growth in our parish.

To offset new development impacts of increased flood risk and congestion and diminished landscape character: woodland and amenity planting should take place in or near each site.

Specific comments:

On flooding

Handed into the Housing table for the record: “In view of the history of flooding in the village (Harbertonford) and the expensive work of the Environment Agency to alleviate the problem, the first step in any consideration of development (with the increased tarmac and concrete run-off) is obviously to get an assessment and report from the Environment Agency [on future risk.] Can you tell us what their view is and when their report will be published for us to study? Without their assurance of no impact on an already stretched catchment, any development would clearly be ‘dead in the water’ from the start.”

“My house has been flooded five times – water inside. ” (Deborah Marks of Crowdy Mill)

Clive Fairweather: “Harbertonford sites proposed/offered are on the ‘wrong side’ of our flood protection scheme. The idea of two parking spaces per home will increase run-off and is ridiculous, and one space per bedroom is barking. It’s crazy to build in steep valleys. Site below H’fd rookery under flood threat. SUDS is a joke.”

“Not one building should go up in Harberton until the interrupted flood provision – promised and part-paid by Devon Highways – is sorted out. What happened to the provision made six years ago? Half used and implemented. There was money available for Ford Farm and Church Barn, but work halted and nothing materialised. Complete run around, and no help from Highways now…they deny older agreement holds. Needs to be contested and reinstated.”

On housing itself

“Should be local, social, affordable and small schemes”

“Needs to be less than 60 per [large] site”

“There must be a provision of working from home in new developments to reduce transport impacts” (Lizzie Giles)

“Ageing population needs to be accommodated – homes with wet rooms, social well-being ‘extra-care’ aspects, exercise opportunity and greenspace amenity” (Sally from Eastleigh)

Re the CLT asset lock on resales – “A young person with a growing family would ‘get stuffed’ with wanting to buy outside the CLT home eventually and not being able to get enough capital to move on.” (Deborah Marks)

“Key workers should have housing priority in the parish.”

“Mixed housing is essential for downsizing circumstances, incomers and ageing people.”

“Any new housing has to have adequate parking factored into each site – two spaces per house (with dual income households) ‘a must’.”

“Parking first (before any new housing goes up) in Harbertonford – however, one space per bedroom is ridiculous.”

“Instead of thinking about individual gardens, it might be best to have an amenity community garden tended by residents together, considering space constraints in each village” (Bridget Green, SHDC officer)

“Why can’t owners of homes currently get permission to self-build along with the CLT? Why not self-build market eco-homes (Passivhaus) with gardens on brownfield sites? For downsizing [due to children growing up]?” (Judy Findlay)

On specific sites

Harberton Village: No further development in village – all sites represent over-development. Tristford Farm site might be suitable if not the whole field, just the edge by road. Suggestion that this site is too steep (Nick Williams). Several are PRO site no. 13 (over no’s 11 & 12) and so disappointed that it has been withdrawn from proposals. Get planning permission anyway on site no. 13 (without owner cooperation) for bus stop at least. No development on site 11 – ‘don’t impact on the playing field amenity!!’ How do we find out how many houses are intended for each site and then assess suitability…? Site no. 12 affordable housing all well and good – great idea – but HOW are lorries going to access Gills Cross?? Will be impossible to bring construction plant and lorries through village so will have to come from Tristford side and pretty problematic there too. Comment that all the builders need do is use smaller trucks – there are similar problems all over Devon. Harberton Village has to share the load of development with the other sites in the parish. Can’t be exempt from development, particularly when it comes to affordable housing.

Follaton area: One comment that not all of the parish development needs should be in these three sites…need has to spread around the parish evenly.

Harbertonford Village: Old Mill development should be the first priority over any other builds in the village. Can’t have the Old Mill be a priority over simpler and cheaper developments – it’s a very complicated site, millions to do properly. Council should compulsorily purchase it if the owner continues to do nothing. “The Council doesn’t have the money to do that”. (Bridget Green) Petrol Station going back to residences is a good idea. Turn site no.2 into village pay & display parking. Pavement between site no.2 and centre of village too narrow for reasonable safety. Turn site no.5 into village parking Site no. 7 shouldn’t be developed, ‘a disaster’ because of lack of safe way for pedestrians between the site and the centre of the village.

Jackie Clayton

We had more comments about Harbertonford than about Harberton.

Harbertonford:
One of the big issues was the bus service, which has been improved recently in the daytime but it needs to be improved in the early morning for commuters in the Kingsbridge direction particularly. It was recently estimated that 30 children are travelling to Kingsbridge Community College in the mornings and they have to be taken there by alternative means. An earlier bus would be great.

No electronic bus signage system please.

Lack of evening buses (in both villages) is a problem, particularly for young people, parent pickups and taxis.

A suggestion that perhaps one bus company could provide that evening bus service?

The flow and speed of traffic in Harbertonford is considered a big issue. Support for both widening and narrowing the road to solve the problem. It needs thinking about as it is a big issue.

Kiln Lane to open as a footpath for safety reasons??

Safety down Bow Road and Old Road is a priority and needs to be protected by signage and by not allowing such heavy traffic down there.

Comment that if roads are designated cycle ways this can attract funding for upkeep.

Car parking in both villages was mentioned. It is a problem in both – what do we do about it? Some thought more cars per household some fewer. If we increase car parking maybe that will attract more cars? If we have more car parking where could we do it? At the village hall and football field in Harberton? This should be taken up with those organisations.

The car park at the village hall in Harberton does good service, car parking in the roads is a real issue. Should think more about car sharing and e-bikes provision in Harberton. E-Com cars have been looking for extra sites around Totnes so that is possible.

Other people felt that extra car parking within the village could provide an economic benefit.

Brockhills exit: alteration suggestions were made.

Harberton

Harberton’s demand for public transport is not being met. If there is nothing provided then people don’t use it. If there were more provision perhaps more people would use it. A better bus service on the Plymouth road would be good, particularly if there is to be new development in that area.

The new bus stop is a good idea, but there would need to be thought given to footpaths leading to it and there is mileage in redeveloping the corner. Could this be a condition of planning permission in that area?

2 comments about proposed bypasses –
1. Negative response to the proposed bypass at the back of the village [editor: which village?] as it would impact badly on house values and enjoyment for people living there.
2. There would be great value of a bypass from the a38 at Diptford to Halwell and Morleigh.

by Diana Crann (text supplied after the meeting)

Business. There was a call for affordable small business units together with a hub for these business units which would provide photocopying facilities, faster broadband & parking etc. The former Glanvills Mill building in Harbertonford was suggested as a possibility. Faster broadband in the parish was imperative as at present the service was very, very slow at times and at best not fast enough. Farm diversification was also called for, but there were mixed views regarding solar and wind turbines. Finally, a better postal service was called for as collections are usually at the end of the day and deliveries not very early in the day.

Social. There was a call for better sports facilities, for tennis in particular, also shooting – possibly rifle or clay. Also in Harberton communal composting facilities for gardeners up near the Parish Hall, which would need to be monitored carefully.

by Chris Caunter (text supplied after the meeting)

History

The Policies in this section do not say anything specific

What do the policies in this section mean?

Belstone Green Lane should be preserved as part of our heritage

All green lanes and footpaths to be regarded as part of our heritage and preserved for the future

Harberton Square – an important area of Harberton village and needs to be relandscaped, upgraded to a more attractive community area

Rural Environment

Harberton parish is an area of high landscape value and we want to keep it and protect the landscape and the views, and help encourage tourism

There is a map of the village Conservation areas, why not a map of the high landscape value areas

Bring the area into an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to enable it to be protected

Harbourne Trail – good idea

The green lanes need maintaining – who is responsible for this and we think they need to be looked after

I want Hernaford Lane/Road to stay as farm vehicles only and not to be changed to a green lane or for any increase in vehicular traffic

Harbourne Trail a good idea but don’t let it get spoiled with views of solar panels and wind turbines

I don’t want a public footpath through Kiln fields

Find a site for a village orchard – what about the field between Palmer’s field and the village?

We like to see natural wildflower meadows

Concerns re the suitability of the River Harbourne for kayaks and canoes, especially liability for safety and accidents

We don’t think the River is suitable for canoes it is too small

Lots of permissive footpaths please

The idea for a bypass is wrong. It will only move the problem in the village to different and devastating problems elsewhere.

---

Ginny Davidson and Nuala McDonnel

Summary

30 people visited the table for sustainable energy during the public meeting held on 24/4/2014 at 7pm

Overall the comments were of a negative nature concerning the wording of the section as it stands, with much disquiet and concern majoring on the impact on the character of the area, dismay at the potential growth of the ‘solar farm’ developments within the area and the possibility of more development of wind turbines in an indiscriminate manner.

All of the commentators endorsed the concept of sustainable power, but clearly wanted to ensure that constraints were in place to ensure development was not detriment to either amenity or character. Size and scale were key comments.

Less than half supported the idea of ‘community’ projects, as long as they were not to the detriment of others. Those who favoured ‘community’ projects were generally against the idea of only the landowner benefiting.

All bar 2 contributors felt that solar developments on fields should NOT be allowed within the parish, and that any wind turbines would be small enough to sit within the landscape, 50m was too big. Most would prefer to see any sustainable energy development providing power to the actual parish rather than to the grid and development should not be at the detriment of others, eg neighbours, tourist business etc.

Overall the majority expressed great concern that not enough was being done to protect the area and its beauty of unspoilt countryside, natural rural environment, they did not want to see that environment degraded/damaged. People also expressed concern about the concept of the parish council accepting cash for support of specific developments

All comments were in favour of Solar on buildings, roof’s and a requirement for any new builds. (Commercial and Domestic)

In detail

Comments made during three sessions:

Session One:

Introduction; what comments would you like to make on the sustainable energy section, ideas, suggestions, good or bad – am here to make notes.

Attendees comments/notes

Ruining the countryside, much better ways surely. Why not turbines in the Dart (Hydro generation). Move to Hydro. Subsidies out of hand and causing misery. 3 turbines blown over and snapped. Major concerns about the impact on the landscape and tourism. Positive for renewables but can we look for other alternatives such as Geo-thermal, hot rocks, water and tidal. Solar, not on fields, only on brown field, on roofs – factories, schools, public buildings.

For Wind Turbines, but reasonable size, examples Rattery (Brownstone Farm). Sit within the landscape, not dominating. Community owned and based, like South Brent. Don’t mind the look of turbines, a visual reminder about the need for sustainable energy. Anti solar blocks on the landscape, we should be promoting roof top installations, especially community buildings. More small hydro-systems.

Very concerned about the effect on the landscape, pollution, impact when it comes to returning the land to its original use. Area is fast becoming an Industrial area. 1 man, 1 benefit. No benefit for the wider community, in fact reverse. In my opinion farming will suffer, should be producing more food, not less.

Land ‘sours’ under solar panels, land becomes fallow. What about the removal of the concrete installations, and disposal of old solar panels? How are they disposed of, or are we creating even more waste? Impact on wildlife?

Many at the table voiced their concern and frustration regarding the notification of planning applications. Particularly as cumulative impacts are often not known about. Transparency on the public consultation process and public involvement needs to be guaranteed.

The plan completely wrong in endorsing solar and wind turbines, not thinking about the long term future of the overall economy, tourism business will suffer.

Very concerned with the change in the landscape which has been extraordinarily bad. Creeping development which isn’t noticed in individual planning applications.

The role of the farmer was of custodians of the landscape and now suddenly industrialists. Doesn’t make any sense, this is industrial development, they should be on brownfield sites.

SE2 policy – reservations concerning ‘community benefit’ expressed – all except one thought the parish council seeking financial reward would be a bad idea. The one in favour thought that: ‘community’ aspect was very important, he considered sustainable energy more important than the ‘community benefit’ but the ‘community benefit’ followed closely. All projects should pay a community benefit. All new builds should have solar panels and solar should be fitted to existing buildings.

So many other places around the country more suitable for solar farms. Our landscape in this part of the world is unique . its hilly terrain makes solar very conspicuous.

What percentage of people (including tourists) come here for respite from the industrial structures?.

Benefits of solar panels and wind turbines are not proven.

Siting of solar panels should be more rigorously considered.

Points also discussed:

Poundsbury experiment – Gas from waste, interested in exploring this option more, especially as it deals with waste at the same time.

Ground source heating, but not likely to benefit overall and produce enough for people. What about Anaerobic Digesters?

Solar: why are we not making use of motorway verges, derelict or brown field sites, keep them off the farming land.

Need definition of proliferation, when is enough, enough?

Need to keep the character of the area.

Comments in addition, not particular to sustainable energy section:

-Car sharing scheme for the area. -Should be promoting conservation in energy use, public buildings, street lighting -New Housing needs to encompass renewable energy initiatives eg, water saving, solar, geo thermal, be sustainable.

Bystander from Totnes seemed unwilling to comment, but when pressed;

Likes the model of south brent and finds the turbine visually attractive. Insistent turbine is 50m to blade tip height. Didn’t know whether the closest neighbour or holiday cabin business was a shareholder in the scheme, or involved. Perhaps should explore compensation for those most affected.

---

Session Two:

Solar, Food production will be badly affected, loss of land, there is a report on this subject from the government.

What’s the point of listing buildings when the landscape character the buildings sit within is being trashed?

In danger of no real countryside being left

Why are putting them all over the fields, especially when their are plenty of roofs not being utilised. Should be for own use only and not to the grid where it is causing problems. Technology is moving forward and this is highly likely to be redundant in near future

Should not being granting planing permission unless the building application is making full use of generating its own energy

This is all about overseas money and creates no jobs locally

What happens to waste caused once panels are finished with?

Quota has already been reached, why more? Hasn’t this area done enough already

Nothing will grow under the panels

“I fully support renewables, this is what is I see:
1. Solar on roofs, Industrial sites, not on fields.
2. Solar thermal should be encouraged for domestic hot water.
3.Water mills & water turbines (Hydro)
4. Wind Turbines, but away from homes (at least 1/2 mile and visually sit within landscape, not dominate it, blend. More research needs to be done on noise and not be un- neighbourly. would rather see more small than I giant/large one, benefit of the power to the actual community.”

Decommissioning needs to be part of the plan

Would not be democratic if the draft went forward as it is, needs to reflect people’s comments

We must have height restrictions to stop big turbines, they need to be restricted to 25m to tip (75ft)

No joined up thinking between building and resource, eg where’s the energy coming from, what about additional waste being produced. Any building must be low carbon.

Prompt: Okay but we need sustainable energy within the plan, what ideas does everybody have?

“No Biomass, not a fan of it, especially when its being imported”

“Water, small turbines”

“Heat exchangers”
“Ground source heat pumps”

“Reduction of consumption”
“Anaerobic Digesters, use waste” – not incinerators”
“Why bother with more building, if its not self sufficient”

---

Session Three

“Wind Turbines, no, inefficient, not saving carbon footprint. New government comment to withdraw subsidies for on-shore wind. Solar panels, no. Not on land, should be for food production and uses much more energy in the production of the panels themselves than is ever generated. Bio-mass unlikely to be viable. Need to increase insulation in the homes. Use power more economically, not on stand by, use ‘l.e.d.s’, reduce lighting in towns, night time waste. Hydro is efficient. Geo-thermal a good option. Small scale nuclear in dedicated area”.

Wrong use of land, hosting solar panels, takes land away from production – pasture or crops.

Solar changes the character of the landscape and its not known if it affects horses passing by. Why are we allowing this near green lanes?

Why are we suggesting footpaths, when there will be nothing to see

What about the impact on other peoples’ businesses that bring money into the area, holidays cottages etc

Loss of amenity

Farming is dying out as industrialisation takes over, population is increasing, why are we losing even more land, its madness

Why is there no discussion on hydro or use of the dam/or a dam – crowdy mill for example. Subsidy system is wrong.

Everyone thinks that the renewable section needs to be re-written.

Encouragement of domestic solar and micro-turbines for own use, including in a conservation area.

Solar on roofs, rather than on fields New Homes should have solar panels

How can a parish council say that it has expressed approval or disapproval of an application if it has asked for money?

Why don’t they use the A38 corridor for solar and wind? Draft as it stands would only be supported by the minority

“Very much hope that we get the plan radically rewritten to encompass our views and concerns and to reflect residents wishes and aspirations for the area.”

___

Attendees

Sustainable Energy Table

						TQ9 7SQ
						TQ9 7SQ
						TQ9 7SH
						TQ9 7SQ
						TQ9 7SH
						TQ9 7SQ
						TQ9 7SP
						TQ9 7SP
						TQ9 7SS
						TQ9 7SS			11

(Outsider observer Totnes TQ9 5QB

						TQ9 7LL
						TQ9 7LL
						TQ9 7SW
						TQ9 7SS
						TQ9 7SS
						TQ9 7SS
						TQ9 7SS
						TQ9 7SS
						TQ9 7LL
						TQ9 7SP
						TQ9 7HU
						TQ9 7TS
						TQ9 7SS
						TQ9 7TQ			14

Outside village, previous resident.

						TQ9 7FE			 1

						TQ9 7SP
						TQ9 7TA
						TQ9 7TP			 3

Total visiting the table and joining in on discussions 30