Totnes Civic Square

Building over Totnes: A Guide to Objecting

If you haven’t already heard apparently they could be building all over central Totnes.

And the deadline for objections is this Friday (12th August) at 5pm

Here’s the Film detailing the sites…

WHAT CAN I DO?

Sign this petition….

SIGN HERE…

Send and email with your objections to…

strategic.planning@swdevon.gov.uk

Here are some of the things you might like to object to about the proposed development for Central Totnes…

The following suggestions for what to write come from Councillor John Birch of Totnes but as much as possible you should add your own objections too – or at least reword it a bit, if you have time.

‘The proposed mixed use development in respect of the Totnes Central Area and going by reference T3 is not viable for the following reasons:

  1. The Leechwell Garden project has been undertaken in The Southern Area and as such is no longer available for development.
  2. The new Grove School building has been constructed on its existing site and as such this area is no longer available for development.
  3. The uncertainty surrounding the town centre parking provisions.
  4. The proposed Market Square and Civic Hall development, as set out in the adopted Development Plan Document – Feb 2011, should be reviewed in conjuction with Totnes Town Council and be the subject of further general consultation.

Responses should be submitted by email to Strategic.Planning@swdevon.gov.uk by 5.00pm on Friday 12 August 2016.

Here’s the plan that details proposals for development across the region…

JOINT LOCAL PLAN

Here are some more things you might like to object to…

BALTIC WHARF

The proposed mixed use development in respect of the Baltic Wharf Area, going by reference T1, is not viable for the following reasons:

  1. Congestion on local Highways caused by increasing conurbation size
  2. That the provision of housing is not being designed to meet local needs and therefore contravenes the interest of local communities.

KEVICCS PLAYING FIELDS

The proposed housing development in respect of the KEVICCS Area, going by reference T2, is not viable for the following reasons:

  1. Congestion on local Highways caused by increasing conurbation size
  2. That the provision of housing is not being designed to meet local needs and therefore contravenes the interest of local communities.
  3. That local housing needs have already been met by existing development by number (if not by affordability)
  4. That the increasing concentration of dwellings will impact on the nature of the town as a desirable destination for tourists. This will have a negative effect on the local economy.
  5. Open green spaces are essential to the well being of residents who, through age, disability, or economic disadvantage, do not have access to the outlying country side.

Again, these are only suggestions – If you have better ones please feel free to post them in the comments section below.

And for those of you who are wondering why this is happening the way it is, this might provide some answers…

I’ll make this a brief as I can.

Development is a good thing when it is engages in an intelligent way and responds to the communities that it should support. What we are seeing locally is that consultation processes are being ignored and the number of houses we are seeing being built is in excess of local needs. Development appears to be motivated by other factors entirely. Perhaps because…

  1. Local councils have had their funding cut by central government.
  2. One way they can make up the short fall is by selling off land to developers.
  3. They also get New Homes Bonus from Central Government.

That’s the short answer.

Tagged , .

Clive Austin

Clive Austin is the founder of Educating Independence.
He is a Writer, Filmmaker and Educator.
His background is in curiosity, extreme sports and being creative.
He likes some things more than other things, and the things he loves are generally not things at all.

10 Comments

  1. The intended destruction of the basic fabric of Totnes is disgraceful. Where are the jobs for the people in these houses. How are our roads going to cope with the increased traffic. It is all about greedy developers and a couldn’t care less Council. And a multi storey car park!! Words fail me

  2. The Dartington area is also having real problems in regards to new housing development. Most new dwellings do not fit in with the local environment and capacity to cope with large amounts of new residents. Please if you get the chance look into opposing Dartington developments on the shdc website! Developers are trying to get away with paving over Dartington due to it’s smaller voice.

  3. Protect our open spaces.

    Money should be going into renovating and making better use of under-used upper floors in Fore Street. Whatever happened to the “homes above shops” movement?

  4. Do the planners ever go to the places they ruin? Totnes is becoming a ‘no go’ area as the traffic is so ghastly. We do not need any more houses, the town and surrounding area simply cannot support and more cars and people.
    Dartington has simply horrid new houses, totally out of keeping with any other houses, did the architects even visit Dartington before they planned these houses?
    Now Totnes is to be further ruined, by even more building, even more cars, even more people. Make people with second or holidays homes pay double council tax, that should help, but stop any more building !!!

    • I can assure you that your view is shared by many others. Also that people are beginning to demand a more accountable mode of democratic engagement. People are saying that it is not enough to just elect an official and give them free reign for a fixed term. they want greater transparency and greater accountability.

      • I agree, so often I find myself thinking what is the point in objecting when no one listens to us, but if we all stand together maybe, just maybe we can make a difference.

    • Hello. Thanks for your comment.
      Whilst filming on the SaturdayI was told that needed a permit by the market inspector. I chose not to use the footage from that day as an official objection could have caused the footage to get pulled completely. My comment about being empty was in fact reference to the lack of traders as the previous two days that space had been bustling with traders. That was the point I wanted to make, that traders can fill the whole space and not just the front, as it is the rear carpark that will more than likely be one of the targets for development.
      Sorry it this caused confusion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *