1) Letter from Mr. Cheesley thanking the Council for giving him the opportunity to speak at the 23rd January meeting and advising that the plans had been withdrawn and that for any new application he would consult with the Parish Council.
2) NSC Local Development Framework- Statement of Community Involvement. This was adopted by NSC for planning purposes on 1st February. Anyone aggrieved by the “SCI” may make an application to the High Court under Section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 on the grounds that the “SCI” is not within the appropriate or that a procedural requirement has not been complied with. The application must be made not later than the end of a 6week period starting on 1st February 2007.
Anyone aggrieved by the “SCI” may also make an application to the High Court for permission to apply for a judicial review of the decision to adopt. Any such application must be made not later than 3 months after 1st February 2007.
There being no other business the meeting was declared closed at 19.40 hours.
Mr. D W Glynn
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Your Ref: 06/P/2127/F
Director of Development & Environment
North Somerset Council
14th February 2007
Dear Mr. Bowering
Planning Application 07/P/0160/F & 06/P/2104/CA
Richards Garage, Broad Street, Wrington
The Parish Council objects to the applications for the above site on the following grounds.
It is our reading of current policy (H.1, 8.28 2nd. deposit draft Replacement Local Plan) that the business should be actively and widely marketed for sale or at least be proven to be non-viable and as the land is currently designated for business use then this requirement needs to be implemented. Is the whole of the land designated for business use?
Bearing in mind its current use, i.e. petrol storage and supply, oil change and car repairs, it is surprising that no survey of potentially contaminated land has been undertaken. The Council is aware that the leat has been culverted under the site and is concerned that this could be affected by the proposed development. A full "Environmental Impact Assessment" should be undertaken- it is surprising in view of current usage that the applicant considered this unnecessary as per their application.
Planning Policy Guidance 3 effectively comes into force on 1st April 2007 and if this application was viewed under this new policy then it fails to meet the criteria.
Density & Privacy.
The development proposed is far too dense for this site when considering that some of the proposed properties will be only 0.95 metres from existing properties and will seriously affect their right to light. Privacy will be seriously affected with overshadowing and potential intrusion. Whilst not specifically mentioned street lighting and security lights systems will inevitably be intrusive on existing properties.
The application shows 22 parking spaces on site of which 6 are garages. Using the findings of the Wrington Parish Plan relative to parking needs the site will be at least 6 spaces short and this can only lead to off-site parking in Broad Street, The Triangle or Ladywell. As an example Broad Street currently has space for 18 cars whereas the residents who now rely on on-street parking total 25! Add to this the fact that this is the "shopping centre" for the village and houses a popular inn, with no parking facilities, then any potential additional parking will undoubtedly create congestion problems. It could also be detrimental to local business as if customers cannot park then they will find alternative outlets for shopping etc which could lead ultimately to a loss of facilities within the Village.
Note: - The NSC Housing supply bulletin, April 2004, reported an average of 3.3 vehicles per dwelling for equivalent developments, this suggests 45 cars!
Additionally the small garden space shown on the site maps will inevitably lead householders to convert the garages into storage units exacerbating the problem again.
Wrington has a relatively high proportion of elderly residents and there are already issues with pedestrians on safety and the potential increase that will be created by this development with its shortage of on-site parking will only increase the problem.
The site plan indicates the site access as being 3.65 metres whereas at its narrowest point it is only 3.18 metres and service vehicles (waste and fire etc.) would have great difficulty in entering the site. Has any count been en taken of the ODPM Guidance for Fire Appliances. With regard to waste the restriction on access would effectively mean that this would have to be left on Broad Street for collection thereby cluttering up an already severely congested area.
Clearly, development of this site, with an increase in built development and corresponding decrease in garden/grassed area, will reduce the ability of water to run off as there will be an increase in the rate of flow to the drainage system. In 1968 Broad Street was flooded!
The housing design and quality is not felt to be in keeping with this Conservation Area with the developers suggesting the use of uPVC. This is against NSC policy and as we have had a recent case where a householder has been made to replace a new
uPVC window with a wood frame window to comply with standards then it is considered appropriate that any new build should comply.
The Arboricultural Report by JP Associates gives a balanced view on the developable area of the site which the planning consultants appear to have ignored. It is the Council's opinion that the developer should pay more notice as this would reduce both density and impact.
There is no mention in the plans of a lighting scheme and if the development goes ahead then it will need to be sympathetic with the existing village scheme with white lights necessary. As the road will be private clarification is needed as to who will be responsible for maintaining the lighting as the Parish Council may not be prepared to include in its existing lighting stock.
Section 106- if the scheme is approved.
The Parish Council would wish to see a contribution to improving facilities within the Parish e.g. upgrading of the existing lighting stock.
Clerk to the Council
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Director of Planning and the Environment
North Somerset Council
14 February 2007
Application no. 07/P/0178/F - Land at 8 Butts Batch, Wrington
When commenting on the previous application for development on this site, 06/P/1432/F, the Council objected on the following grounds:
'- drawings are not to scale and misleading
- design is not in keeping with the neighbouring properties
- the application indicates that no trees are to be felled, this is incorrect'
Having considered the revised application we maintain our objection and recommend refusal. We are particularly concerned that the new drawings are still incorrect and very misleading, giving a false impression of the impact on the neighbouring property to the south, 10 Butts Batch, and on the wider street scene. This false impression is created by 10 Butts Batch being shown much smaller than it actually is. We are also concerned about potential access difficulties related to the shared drive and vehicle manoeuvring area. We note that no details are provided of the proposed separating wall.
While objecting to the current proposal, we emphasise that we would not oppose a more appropriate development on this site. However, we recommend that any development should take account of the differing alignments between numbers 8 and 10 Butts Batch, with any new structure more centrally located between the existing properties. There appears to be adequate space available on this site for a new and separate vehicle access to 8 Butts Batch to the extent that any new development should be provided with its own dedicated access.
The current misalignment results in an excessive impact at the rear of neighbouring property, 10 Butts Batch, with some loss of privacy and light. This would be shown more clearly by accurate drawings. Although not an obvious planning issue, the misalignment extends the southwest corner of the proposed development toward the rear of the site to the extent that water and sewage services might well be affected. Water supply to these properties is through a pipeline close to the rear and not from the road.
Finally, we note the inclusion of a false chimney as a design feature. While appreciating that the objective here is to produce a design sympathetic with the neighbouring properties, the Council recommends that any chimney is built as a fully functional unit to allow for possible future use.
Clerk to the Council