The Chew Valley Neighbourhood Plan Community Consultation Feedback on Policy Options
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Participating Parishes: Chew Magna, Chew Stoke, Compton Martin, East Harptree, Hinton Blewett, Ubley & West Harptree The Chew Valley Neighbourhood Plan community consultation feedback on policy options CVNP response A =Agreed NA= No action Feedback Comments – ‘Agree’ = Yes to Question 1: Broadly agreed with policies in the Options document. Specific Policy No. NC=Note comment Ref. No policy agreement recorded as ‘Agree’ against relevant policy NP=Not relevant to NP √ = Noting respondent’s Agree 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, Agree 8 ,11,12, 13,14,15,16, 17,18,19,20, Broad Policy 21,22,23, Agreement 25,26,27,28, 29,30,31,33, 32,34,35,36, 37,38,39,40, 41, 42, 43 HDE1 21 Agree. Likely that our landscape will change dramatically as ash-die back takes hold. Must be taken into account Not an NP issue Rural Landscape 23 Agree. Character 25 Agree 26 Agree. 29 Agree 28 Agree 30 Need fracking policy as this would adversely affect landscape character, views & traffic In PMP = addressed 33 Agree Importance of trees and hedgerows in landscape should be highlighted. Developers should replace trees and hedgerows cut HDE12 Modified Policy = 34 down with those of same spread and size. addressed Should not build more look alike properties, contemporary one offs are often very attractive The policy does not suggest that. Can do with local materials etc. Generally people 2 want traditional character but policy does not rule out good contemporary design. 4 Agree 7 Agree 8 Agree 12 Agree Quotes NPPF ref 60.... – Your policies appear to be looking to impose elements of design and style that are contrary to NPPF CVNP not imposing design/style guidance. The NPPF allows for local character while not imposing styles. Your policy mentions conserving character without merely indicating the building 13 any reference to encourage original design. Something that will surely be essential to meet growing environmental and landscape character. requirements in terms of construction, materials and sustainability. If policy is too prescriptive you risk stifling innovation and See also response to “2” above. encouraging villages full of faux reproductions. Policies are vague. If policy is tied to Parish Character Assessments, these must be subject to same degree of consultation as The policies aim to not be the NP prescriptive. The Character 15 assessments are included as appendices. 17 Agree 19 Agree 35 Agree 38 Agree – retention of rural landscape The rural character within villages themselves is also important. This particularly includes trees, stone walls and hedgerows in Picked up via HDE2 41 villages as well as outside. I hope I’m correct in assuming that the vagueness of ‘in accordance with other policies in the plan’ will be replaced with a list Each policy counts 24 of policies. A developer could argue that he can chose which policies to accord with, and win. HDE2 21 Agree Settlement Build 23 New build must match existing Policy asks to reference existing Character 27 Agree 29 Agree 28 Agree Need to highlight importance of sustainable buildings & low energy use PMP has detailed policies for 30 this. HDE6b addressed 33 Colour of commercial & farm buildings should be controlled as too many are eyesores and need camouflaging Outside scope 32 Disagree NA Importance of trees and hedgerows in landscape should be highlighted. Developers should replace trees and hedgerows cut See answer 34 to HDE1 34 down with those of same spread and size. Don’t always want to go traditional. Sometimes a building needs to be more in the present/modern HDE1&2 guide re scale, form, setting, materials. Can be modern design but would not 31 be supported if for example there was a predominant use of materials that are not seen locally or use different roof angles etc… 2 Should not build more look alike properties, contemporary one offs are often very attractive See answer to “31” above At HDE2 you do refer to the importance of design in any new developments. However I really do think that this section needs Yes, good design important the 3 beefing up. If it is a given that there will be new development it is essential that much more effort is made by developers and policy is a guide. See answer to their architects to come up with imaginative and sympathetic designs (it does not in my view need to be identikit with the rest “31” above of the surrounding village/area-one of the great things about good architecture is that it has evolved over the years and that is what has made our buildings in villages and towns so much more interesting). And please can good quality materials be used as well. A good example of a development which should have been allowed on pure development grounds was Parkers Mead behind the School in East Harptree but it was rightly turned down because the quality of the design and materials there was terrible. Views to lakes, Compton Martin Coombe, hills to either side Will reassess all the views for 4 the draft All villages are working villages (not chocolate box) & have been added to in various period styles for 000s of years, so modern See answer to “31” above 5 development should be allowed Disagree. Design might be inhibited. Don’t want pastiche of country cottage. Good design is key Yes, good design important the 7 policy is a guide. See answer to “31” above 8 Agree Any development should be mixed style rather than uniform in design – stone face/rendered, different rooflines, mixed Outside scope, and would be 11 frontages too prescriptive. Room for small scale eco houses made from materials other than concrete & stone If within the character of an 12 area. Quotes NPPF ref 60.... – Your policies appear to be looking to impose elements of design and style that are contrary to NPPF As HDE1 guidance. The NPPF allows for local character while not imposing styles. Your policy mentions conserving character without 13 any reference to encourage original design. Something that will surely be essential to meet growing environmental requirements in terms of construction, materials and sustainability. If policy is too prescriptive you risk stifling innovation and encouraging villages full of faux reproductions. Policies are vague. If policy is tied to Parish Character Assessments, these must be subject to same degree of consultation as As HDE1 15 the NP 17 Agree 18 Agree. Use of local stone/building materials reflecting local limestone geology ? 19 Agree 35 Agree 39 Agree 40 Agree The look of the place is important that the look reflects what the place is. There is risk of promoting heritage theme park Policies are flexible enough to 24 rather than living community. Construction to allow for design which respects the existing surrounds and provides solutions to allow this. 21thC problems Agree. Couldn’t understand graphics at consultation. Many of best views only available to walkers. A. Also try to make graphics HDE3 21 clearer for next version. Important views 22 Lakes and hills A 26 Knowle Hill-view of most of valley, Top of hill on Norton Lane-view over Chew Magna to Lake NC Agree. Views across valley from Mendip scarp at Ubley & Compton Martin, also from Hinton Blewett. View South from Breech NC 27 Hill and ? Agree. Entire skyline surround the Chew Valley, looking in and out Skyline HDE4 modified & slight 29 modification to HDE3 28 Agree. All, particularly top of East Harptree, above Compton Martin and Prospect Stile Hinton Blewett NC 33 Agree A 32 Lakes and the hills A Views into and out of CV are impacted by development in other parishes and other councils. Should be more communication Some of our policies will help. between bodies so views are not affected. Can monitor & comment on all 34 planning appln regardless of authority. Don’t build on everything. CV needs preserving. Also Common lands, knowle Hill, Pagans Hill, Ubley Coombe, Compton There is no plan to! Common 31 Martin Pound, Hinton Blewett Prospect Stile, West Harptree top of Harptree Hill, East Harptree top of village land is already designated. 1 Agree. See village character assessments. See EH document in particular A 2 Agree. Views from Chew Magna towards Chew Stoke by of Mendips is delightful A & NC 3 Any Village Design Statement adopted should be incl as appendix, e.g. Chew Magna Noted – will include 4 5 Horizons and skylines. CV is essentially rural and that needs to be protected A 6 Norton Lane looking SW over Chew Magna, Lake and valley @ 109m AHSL C 7 Top of School Lane (Shoreditch), Breach Hill Lane, lake A 8 Agree. Chew Valley Lake A 12 Skyline views, from edge of Mendips towards lake. Houses should not obscure existing houses’ view of green space A. No entitlement to view 13 Disagree – might come back to haunt you! NC Nempnett Thrubwell SW over Blagdon lake Not CV area. 14 Prospect Stile HB NW over Chew lake Included Stone bridge at end of Dumpers Lane. Chew Magna, River Chew looking upstream Not long view 17 Agree. Views of the lakes when climbing up out of Ubley southwards NC 18 Agree ) 19 Agree. View in and around Hinton Blewett are important ) 20 View of Lake from East Harptree and side of Mendips ) A 35 Agree ) 38 Prospect Stile and from Lower Road ) 40 Agree. All landscape views are important ) As well as the “within valley” views, it is important to remember the substantial impact of the valley as you enter it from NC 41 surrounding hills. For example, the stunning view from Dundry Hill. Lakes views. The many smaller hills within and bounding the valley.