Online Comments Application No: 19/01490/FUL I have been a resident of Farrells Field for 20 years and I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development of 38 dwellings to the East of Farrells Field in Yatton Keynell. The proposed residential development is for 38 houses, which represents 27% more than the Wiltshire Allocation Plan, and is highly unsuitable for and out of character with this rural village location. The vast majority of the village is within the Cotswolds Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and this location contributes significantly to the character of Yatton Keynell in its entirety. Any new development should be sympathetic to this. The proposed development is not. Persimmon’s stock cheap housing in varying brick and roof tile colours and including rendering is completely out of character with the village and largely the same as that being mass-built across Birds Marsh in Chippenham. With the potential for Persimmon being stripped of its right to sell Help to Buy homes following allegations of poor standards and excessive profits, would it be wise for Wiltshire Council to reject this proposal subject to a review including a comparative value for money assessment? Comments: There is no mention of energy supply in the proposals. Yatton Keynell is a village without a gas supply. If an oil tank with the required spacing around it is placed in each garden then many of the dwellings would be devoid of any garden at all. Farrells Field would then be subject to the pollution of an additional 38 oil fired boilers together with approximately 80 additional cars. Therefore is the statement from the Persimmon Planning Statement in section 7.2 “…incorporating features that enhance the health and wellbeing of constructors, occupiers and the wider community.” misleading? The broadband supply at the Farrells Field end of the village was not upgraded to fibre in 2014 due to the homes great distance from the cabinet to which they are connected. Nearer cabinets are at full capacity. BT have not indicated any intention to upgrade their infrastructure and our current broadband speeds are mostly below the Universal Service Obligation (USO). An additional 38 homes connected to the current infrastructure will increase the contention ratio on the current copper lines significantly. This will undoubtedly deteriorate further our broadband speed. What communications infrastructure is being put in place in the proposed plans? The proposed development effectively links Yatton Keynell, Coldharbour and Tiddleywink. It is a good idea that the existing mature tree screen along the B4039 is maintained both for wildlife and aesthetic reason. When entering the village this vegetation screen would also maintain the break between Yatton Keynell and Coldharbour/Tiddleywink. However, the proposed development will close an important wildlife corridor that deer use to cross the B4039 under cover of the scrub and trees that the current green belt land offers. Badgers are present nearby and a multitude of birds including goldfinch and yellowhammer reside in the proposed development land. As an amateur astronomer I am particularly concerned at the prospect of additional street lighting next to Farrells Field. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) states that “…that darkness at night is one of the key characteristics of rural areas and it represents a major difference between what is rural and what is urban.” How is the lighting of the proposed new development going to protect our rural night sky? In my garden (1 Farrells Field) and that of my neighbours there are natural springs that keep the corner of our gardens soaking wet all year round. Currently this water has access to seep underground to the adjacent land East of Farrells Field in order to evaporate. I am very concerned that the proposed development will exacerbate the issue and potentially cause flooding. Has this been considered? Whilst I welcome the separate road access to the proposed development from the B4039, access from Farrells Field has not been entirely ruled out. There is insufficient off-road parking within Farrells Field and neighbours therefore park some cars on the road. We had a slight issue with this some months ago when the rubbish could not be collected as the lorry could not gain access between parked cars. This could be more serious in the case of a fire. The pinch points cannot be removed as they calm the traffic to sufficiently safe speeds to cater for playing children and the tight road bends. I personally have to exit my drive very carefully and slowly due to virtually no visible splay. The footpath on my side of the road ends just past my drive entrance and this should remain, as it would be impossible for me to see bikes speeding past on the pavement for example. Can you provide assurances that Farrells Field will not be developed in any way to cater for the new development? Dropping the speed limit on the B4039 to 30mph to the East side of Tiddleywink is a good idea and needs good signage and road markings. This should be done irrespective of any new development. The existing 20mph limit at school start and end times is also a good idea. Adding traffic calming measures such as speed bumps or pinch points which force cars to stop and then start again either side of the new development access onto the B4039 would cause increased noise pollution and emissions contributing to climate change. Any pinch points which require cars to travel onto the opposite side of the road in a head-on manner in such proximity to blind bends would be dangerous especially given the current state of the road surface. Local companies, for example M J Church, send many very heavily laden lorries around the area and these can struggle to stop in a safe distance when required. At the Malmesbury Road / Hardenhuish Lane traffic lights on 4th Mar 2019 a lorry overshot the red lights by approximately 5 metres. In 2018 a lorry failed to stop exiting the M J Church depot in Allington with a very serious accident avoided only by a few inches. I would highly recommend keeping oncoming traffic on different sides of the road. What is the calculated increase in pollution due to the new development? I maintain that the area of land in question is clearly more closely related to the countryside than to the settlement and should be left to the wildlife it contains. A quotation from PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (2009) at EC6.1: “Local planning authorities should ensure that the countryside is protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and to ensure it may be enjoyed by all.” Many thanks for taking the time to consider this opposition. Name: Dr. Terence L Wood 1 Farrells Field Yatton Keynell Address: Chippenham Wiltshire SN14 7PJ Date: 29/03/2019 .