Consultation Response Form Please Use This Form to Respond Or Make Representations on Local Plan Part II and Associated Consultation Documents

Mendip Local Plan Part II: Sites & Policies – Pre-Submission Consultation

Consultation Response Form Please use this form to respond or make representations on Local Plan Part II and associated consultation documents. For information or advice, please contact the Planning Policy Team by email at [email protected] or phone (0300) 303 8588.

Contact Details If you have appointed somebody to act as your agent, please give their contact details. All correspondence will be sent to the agent Name: Liz Hughes Agent Name:

Organisation (if applicable): Company Name:

Address:

Postcode: Email: Date completed 10/2/18 Tel: Date completed

Do you wish to be notified of future stages of Local Plan Part II (tick box) YESYES We will contact you by e-mail only unless you confirm here (tick box)

Data protection – please read - The information collected as part this consultation will be processed by the Council in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The purposes for collecting this data are: to assist in plan making; and to contact you, if necessary, regarding the planning consultation process. Please note that representations must be attributable to named individuals or organisations at a postal address. Representations and contact names will be published on the Mendip website but no other personal information Copies of this form are available from Council Offices and Access Points or can be downloaded from www.mendip.gov.uk/localplanpart2 . If you require this document in another format such as Braille, large print or another language then please contact us.

Please use a separate form for each site or main issue you wish to make. You can also attach one contact form to a group of representations. Please make sure any separate documents include your name –so they can be clearly identified.

Please return your response by 5pm Monday 12th February 2018. By post to: Planning Policy, Mendip District Council, Cannards Grave Road, Shepton Mallet, Somerset, BA4 5BT By email to: [email protected] By hand to: The Council offices in Shepton Mallet (address above).

Mendip Local Plan Part II: Sites & Policies - Issues and Options Consultation

For office use

Details of Objection/ Comment./Representation

Name /Organisation Liz Hughes

Please indicate the document to which your WM1: Land at Court House Farm (HELAA representation relates (e.g. policy, paragraph site WSM006) number, HELAA site reference )

Do you consider the Local Plan is Legally Do you consider the Local Plan is Sound 1 ? Compliant? 1 Yes No Yes No x

Do you consider it necessary to participate at examination hearings? (eg present oral Yes evidence)

Please provide details below of why you consider the Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance and soundness of the plan, please also use this box to set out your comments.

I object to the proposal to site all the expected housing requirement for Westbury Sub Mendip until 2029, in one single site (WSM006). I believe it would be better to site the housing requirements around the village as smaller clusters and infill development with a smaller number of houses allocated to WSM006 as part of that overall disbursed plan.

I am concerned by the fact that this proposal clearly sits outside the wishes of many within the community of Westbury Sub Mendip as demonstrated by the May 2017 survey indicated below. I am also concerned that this proposal will have a serious impact on road safety, conservation, tourism, environmental and bio-diversity sustainability, self-build opportunities and the character of the village.

Lack of village support The initial findings of the Neighbourhood Plan of May 2017 survey and the minutes of the Westbury-sub-Mendip Parish Meeting held May 2017:  98% of 138 replies said that the scale of housing developments (ie the number of houses in a single phase of development) was important (13% important, 28% very important, 57% extremely important).  87.5% of 138 replies said the capacity of the A371 and impact of development on the road was important (6.5% important, 16.7% very important, 64% extremely important).

There were a number of further comments within the survey including:  The preferred planning for the village’s allocated number of houses should be in groups of 10-12 houses, in keeping with villages with large estates. Such building should be small scale and should harmonise with the character of the village.  The overdevelopment of one area is not in keeping with the nature of the village, particularly being on the edge of an AONB. Protecting outviews from the AONB is important and 40 houses would be a prominent feature on the landscape from a number of viewpoints in the AONB. There would be a negative visual impact of 40 houses as defined by Mendip’s Sustainability Appraisal.

These responses were drawn from across the village, showing that the majority of people from all quarters are in favour of dispersed building.

Character

1 See our Online Guidance note on what these terms mean 2

Mendip Local Plan Part II: Sites & Policies - Issues and Options Consultation  AONB - WSM006 lies adjacent, ie within meters, of the conservation area and AONB. To the north, the footpaths across the AONB provide stunning views over the surrounding countryside and village and particularly towards the proposed site. One of the key sustainability issues in Mendip is the need to protect, maintain and enhance the district’s important landscapes, protected areas and biodiversity. A large, clumsy development in this site will have a negative impact on the characteristics of the AONB and rural character of the village.  Most of WSM has been awarded conservation area status. A large, homogenous, development on the edge of this area will reduce the conservation feel of the rest of the village and will significantly compromise views into and out of the conservation area.  One large estate will not enable any self-build opportunities for local people.  The village currently consists of a mixture of housing that gives it its unique character. If a large cluster of new housing is built in such a prominent location this will reduce the rural feel of the village and discourage tourism.

Traffic Any entrance point would be close to the junction of Roughmoor Lane with the A371.  The proximity of this likely entrance to the bend and the narrow section of the road to the west of the site in WSM will cause significant traffic disruption and is likely to increase the number of accidents.  The A371 has long been an overused and misused road. It was minuted at the Parish Council meeting that 80% of vehicles were travelling over 30mph. The number of HGVs has also increased.  Density of traffic from one single site will affect the traffic flow far more than if the houses were spread throughout the village. At peak travel times this is already a significant problem at the many points on the A371 where the road narrows.  A further increase of intensive traffic flow at a narrow junction will compound this problem, not just in Westbury sub Mendip but all along the A371, particularly in Rodney Stoke, Draycott, Hollybrook and Easton.  The A371 is designated as a local freight route, restricted to local access only. However, especially since the start of the Hinkley Point project, the number of HGVs has significantly increased, making the road even more dangerous. WSM Parish Council is planning a joint action plan with Rodney Stoke to address this.

Safety  Walking from one side of the village to another across the development site will be more dangerous with more traffic and more roads to cross, particularly if the village hall is re-sited to the new location.  This will restrict movement around the village of our more vulnerable residents and children.

Loss of Agricultural Land  Development in this site involves the loss of a significant amount of Grade 3 arable land which, according to policy guidelines, is best used to deliver crops for food, non-food eg biomass and pharmaceuticals.

A range of sites were proposed in Local Plan I. These have now been removed with no explanation as to why. In addition to the sites proposed in Local Plan 1, a number of other sites have been put forward by residents of the village which have not even been acknowledged. With only one site on the table, all the village’s allocation will be in one location, contrary to the wishes of a majority of local residents whereas if the multiple sites offered already were included, the allocation could be achieved in a way that would be more acceptable to the community.

I am concerned that the Westbury Parish Council took a decision at the Parish Council Meeting, on 7th February 2018 to support the proposal for one site only. This does not represent my view or that of many others in the village. I remain unclear as to the rationale for that decision by the Parish Council.