Anger as Tiverton conservation area altered

Council says other legislation will protect the woodland

Mid Devon District Council’s leader has been accused of being a “tin-pot dictator”, following planned changes to a conservation area around Tiverton’s Grand Western Canal.

The majority of concern from residents centred on the removal of much of a woodland, known locally as Snakes Wood, from the conservation area.

Most of it is being taken out of the conservation boundary because it is not deemed to have historical or architectural significance, characteristics that make up part of the criteria for land being included in a conservation area.

Campaigners also believe other legal protections, such as about wildlife or plants, could be used to protect Snakes Wood.

This week Mid Devon District Council’s cabinet meeting heard the authority had amended its initial proposals around redrawing the conservation area after a public consultation.

This included amending the boundary to include the canal’s embankment near Snakes Wood, keeping land adjacent to Tidcombe Hall in the conservation area in spite of initially considering its removal, and retaining Pondground Cottage in Holcombe Rogus under its protection too.

But among the locations to be removed are agricultural land near Rock House in Halberton, and two modern buildings on Turnpike and Holbrook Farm, both near Sampford Peverell.  Two Grade II-listed lime kilns in Canonsleigh will be added.

Several residents spoke against the plans at the meeting, and urged councillors to let the next full council meeting consider a petition on the issue before making any decisions.

The petition secured around 4,200 signatures, including about 1,791 Mid Devon residents. Its organisers said the council’s own constitution states that petitions with 1,500 signatures or more would be debated by full council.

However, the report for the cabinet meeting stated that at the time of writing, no petition had been received.

A member of the public identified as Mr Downs said the text of the petition was sent to the council on Wednesday 16 October, meaning campaigners expected it to be debated at full council two weeks later

But at the meeting on Wednesday 30 October, council’s leader Cllr Luke Taylor, (Liberal Democrat, Bradninch) criticised the petition for saying the council wanted to “open the door for protected woodlands and open areas to be developed for housing”, adding that he felt the petition’s title was “misleading” and that the supporting text used “provocative and inaccurate phrases”.

Tim Bridger, a member of Tiverton Town Council who set up the petition, criticised Cllr Taylor’s characterisation, claiming the council leader’s comments had “achieved the rare feat of uniting the people of Mid Devon”.

Mr Bridger claimed Mr Taylor was a “tin-pot dictator sat atop a dictatorial cabinet system he had promised to abolish”, but was reprimanded by the meeting’s chairperson Cllr Simon Clist (Liberal Democrat, Upper Culm), for “demeaning a member of the council with a personal view that is unnecessary”.

A spiky interaction continued, with Mr Bridger claiming the council is overlooking the concepts of ‘beauty’, ‘place’ and ‘local character and distinctiveness’ as justifications for keeping a site in a conservation area.

But the meeting heard that the authority needed to justify areas included in conservation areas, and the one covering the Grand Western Canal had not been reviewed since it was created in 1994.

Cllr Steve Keable (Liberal Democrat, Taw Vale), cabinet member for planning and economic regeneration, said the council had to review the district’s conservation areas in line with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and guidance published by Heritage England.

He thanked the public for their “genuine concern”, stating the council was “as concerned as you to get this right.

“Our proposals follow a full and comprehensive public consultation on the draft document, from which key issues were raised and have been published by the council,” he said.

“Specific changes have been made to the initial proposals following comments and information from the public.”