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.

HDE4 21 View from top of Dundry Hill, south. View of Monarch’s Way footpath, north (Smitham Hill – Greendown) A. NC Skyline Policy 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 A Views across valley from Mendip scarp at Ubley & Compton Martin, also from Hinton Blewett. View South from Breech Hill A. NC 27 and ? 29 Agree. Entire skyline surround the Chew Valley, looking in and out A 28 Agree A 33 How could development enhance any of our local views? All our views are important A 32 Lakes and the hills A 34 Views into and out of CV are impacted by development in other parishes and other councils. Should be more communication See answer to HDE3 between bodies so views are not affected. 1 Agree A 2 Views from Chew Magna towards Chew Stoke by of Mendips is delightful A 4 Agree A 5 Horizons and skylines. CV is essentially rural and that needs to be protected A 11 Agree – new properties which spoil skyline should be resisted A 12 Skyline views, from edge of Mendips towards lake A 13 Agree A 17 Agree A 19 Agree A

No problem with social housing providing it is always let to local people who wish/need to live in the valley. Don’t support Added HDE5b HDE5 21 social housing for those who prefer to live in Bath, Radstock, Keynsham. Downsizing NA, Sheltered NA Social housing, cheaper market housing, near shop & transport. Low maintenance small outside area. Or retirement village A Housing Need 22 but needs to be large to be sustainable. Remote wardens have limited use. 23 Cheaper market housing. No more social housing needed. Sheltered Housing – yes, but where? A 25 Social housing, cheaper market housing. Bungalow with garden easy to maintain A 26 Social housing, cheaper market housing – 2/3 bedroom A Agree. Social housing, cheaper market housing, but high quality affordable, not cheap housing that doesn’t fit with HDE2. A 27 Other: warden controlled properties. Better provision required for elderly

Other: quality housing for downsizing by older population. Smaller properties to look after, less maintenance, less worry. A 29 Want to say in the area, preferably the same village 28 Agree. Other – downsizing bungalows. Bungalows easier to cope with A 30 Social housing, cheaper market housing A Social housing, Cheaper market housing – need protections to prevent developments for 2nd/holiday homes, Other – A 33 developers should be required to provide some 1 & 2 bed bungalows in any development above a certain size. Register for local people seeking to downsize to be given first refusal on suitable properties within CV. Estate agents could be consulted. 32 Housing that local youngsters can afford so not forced to move away. Houses with fewer bedrooms, bungalow, Flat A Cheaper market housing. Should include affordables. Social housing provision should have sufficient infrastructure provision, A 34 e.g. transport, job opportunities. Previous social housing as lead to social isolation. Houses with fewer bedrooms. Small scale retirement village similar to Sandford. Look of such development in it's setting would be important Downsizing / to release so families can stay to move up. Possible Eco/sustainable builds. Small flats 2 or 3 storeys. Houses A 31 with fewer bedrooms, also bungalows. No large caravan parks. Possibly some sheltered housing. 1 Quality 2/3 bed houses at market rate A 2 Affordable housing is an important issue. Some smaller houses of 1800sqft of individual design and quality not all the same A 4 Housing for young people to stay in the valley. Cheaper market housing A 5 Help to buy for young people. Other. A Social housing, Cheaper market housing, Other deeded but siting is critical. Have already downsized to 3 generation house A 6 share. Good quality granny annexes are very rare. Agree. No more (social housing?) need in Chew Stoke. But for downsizing – house with fewer bedrooms, bungalow. NC 7 Sheltered not feasible in Chew Stoke. Something like Sandford might work in another village. 8 Social housing, Cheaper Market Housing A Cheaper housing 1-2 bedroom needed more than family homes. Cost £100K-£150K. House with fewer bedrooms, bungalow. A 9 Retirement village The only development of any size since 1990 in EH is houses at Proud Cross. It's a great development which attracted young A (C) families to the village. A similar development of 2&3 bedroomed houses would be welcome and help keep village vibrant. 11 Don’t need more 4-5 bedroom executive properties. 2-3 bed bungalows or chalet bungalows would be particularly attractive to older people who want to downsize but remain local. EH not suitable place for retirement complex or sheltered accommodation, but Chew Magna or WH would be better 12 Smaller dwellings, i.e. 2 beds. Have already downsized. A Agree. Social Housing, Cheaper market housing, Houses with fewer bedrooms. Independent house or apartment with links to NC 14 remote warden Questions need for social /affordable housing in each village. Need should be judged on a valley wide basis as some villages NC 15 have more suitable sites than others 3 bed houses within small scale development Social housing, Cheaper market housing. Important that such housing is for local residents. Would NOT support social A (C – re HDE5b). NC. 17 housing for people outside the area. Retirement village Social housing, Cheaper market housing, Other (sheltered housing for elderly), Bungalow, Flat with lift access to 1st & 2nd A 18 floors. Warden living on site, remote warden link 24/7 like Sandford village 19 Agree. Cheaper market housing, House with fewer bedroom, Retirement village A Small size, privately owned homes suitable for young families & first time buyers – 1 & 2 bed cottages, NOT social housing/low C – Housing need survey will rent. Downsizing style & size homes for older CV people who don’t want to leave area but need smaller homes – 1 & 2 bed indicate 20 cottages. Also 2 & 3 bed homes with parking for 2 cars, small gardens, close to village centre, amenities and public transport. Smaller homes with links to remote warden, communal gardens, plenty of parking with access to village centres & public A transport 35 Cheaper market housing, Bungalow A 36 Social housing, Cheaper market housing, Bungalow A 37 Social housing, Cheaper market housing A 38 Cheaper market housing, Bungalow A 39 Bungalow, retirement village A 40 Cheaper market housing, Bungalow for the ageing, independent house or apartment with links to remote warden A Housing suitable for younger families at economic price. But not subject to “right to buy” which takes them out of the A 41 economic rental pool. Small (eg. 2 bed) accessible within reach of village amenities. Would go to an existing complex elsewhere. Response to most of above: Policy HDE5a ought to deal with the issue of what best suited to the area at any point in time.

Agree. No – householders have option to install their own schemes. My renewable energy scheme is linked to grid & switches A HDE6 21 off during power cut. Fears small scale, i.e. community schemes may be costly to administer. Supports all renewable energy sources provided not detrimental to landscape. No interested in local project, comments above refer. Impossible to manage. Solar panels on roofs or fields ugly if seen from highway. Rainwater/greywater collection systems A Sustainability 22 simple & cheap. CRE expensive to manage 23 Solar panels not pretty. Not easy in Chew Valley. CRE might be possible A HDE6a The Government has abandoned its zero carbon target so this policy needs to be amended/rewritten. Suggest change NC ‘should’ to ‘must’ and provide a definition of ‘sustainable development’. We’ve all seen developers promote their ‘sustainable’ 24 proposals only to find out they mean the insulation levels are a bit better than Building Regulations, the legal minimum. See ‘Aspirations’ below. Some enlightened LPAs have for years demanded that a proportion of energy requirements for new developments be met by renewables. Why are we so behind here? Agree. Lovely rolling countryside, full of exquisite view. Landscape man-made: farms, villages, lakes, it has to be an evolving Part covered in PMP and NPPF thing. Affordable housing desperately needed for young to stay in area. Should produce some of our own energy. Housing 25 clusters or wind turbines on hills will show but not necessarily mean they will spoil views or skyline provided sensitively planned and placed, as they are much needed part of our evolving landscape. Definitely need solar and wind Agree. Difficult to make attractive to investors since Govt reduced subsidies. Would like medium wind turbines in certain A & NC 26 locations… Small scale hydro on River Chew leats Depend on scheme & cautious of any scheme of scale. Must increase use of renewable nut not at expenses of character and A & NC 27 landscape of Chew Valley. Solar farms need very careful siting, views must not be compromised.. Solar panels should not be ‘silver-edged’ variety. Wind turbines are ‘no-go’. Need to produce our own low carbon/renewable energy & not rely on fossil fuels. Need to increase use of renewable/LC A energy to reduce use of fossil fuels and reduce climate change. Community-led schemes can reduce energy bills, better than HDE6 split into a & b 30 allowing fracking. Examples quoted are good & will enable community to take control of its energy use and benefit from profits, plus minimise carbon footprint – solar, wind, heat pumps, biogas & small scales biomass Disagree. Solar panels should be for towns and cities only. If one wind turbine appears we will end up with dozens like HDE6 split into a & b 33 candles on birthday cake. No objection to providing anything, providing no an eyesore or end up being expensive white elephant. Solar farms a criminal waste, should be banned from countryside. Should be more wind turbines, they don’t spoil the landscape/views. Renewables vital for continuation of our species. Yes to A 32 CL renewables but not fracking Concerned about visual and noise impact. Any renewable energy scheme needs careful consideration of effect on views and A & HDE6 split into a & b 34 precedent it sets. Reservations of effectiveness of wind turbines and visual impact. Would need EIA. OK with solar panels that are black. CL maybe, if suitable site and have little visual impact 31 Possible in future as technology advances. Should exploit it, not sure on fracking. Solar panels A No solar farms, panels, pylons or wind farms – all ugly. Alternatives available. Our responsibility to protect country. Solar Accept comment but need to 1 farms, wind power, solar panels, fracking, hydropower are all ugly & intrusive...... Build Hinckley. No to CL Renewables. It's consider how to treat an agricultural area which should be protected. applications 2 Fear of fields being given over to solar panels. Prefer anything not unsightly – heat pumps. No solar panels on roofs. 4 Disagree. Re renewables – as long as adheres to HDE1&2 then no objection A Should encourage renovations of older buildings (so long as it's not listed). All renewables should be encouraged on as many A 5 developments and renovations as possible There is already investing in some CL renewables. Supports all sources of green energy: solar, biomass biogas but first A 6 improve insulation, quality and building regs 7 Want more of CL renewable schemes. CHP plant, solar panels sites if screened A 8 Yes. More renewables, Photo voltaic farm, farm based biodigestors A Agree. Could have wind turbines on Mendips without affecting adversely use of beauty of area. Anaerobic digester for local A 12 waste only. Grants for biomass, heat pumps, solar in individual properties. Solar panels on village halls, wind & water where feasible This only appears to cover new build. Is there a call for guidance on retrofit renewables? Policies apply to planning New development can incorporate sustainability within the overall design. Installation in existing buildings is usually more of a applications. However some 13 problem. While there is guidance for listed buildings and buildings within conservation areas, these are a minority. Can you changes on existing buildings help to control the growing number of PV cells appearing on roofs that seem to have no consistency in layout or design. Some falls under permitted are discreet, many are eyesores. The only way to guarantee their placement would be a requirement for planning permission development and the NP can for all installation but don’t this likely to be popular. Over last 25 years I have known the CV have seen many fine clay tiled not withdraw permission. roofs replace with concrete and many beautiful timber windows stripped out in favour of plastic. I would hope you could do Retrofitting listed buildings the best you can to help preserve the character of our existing building stock and at the same time encourage the best in does have some control. modern design to lead to a better future of buildings. Hard to preserve character of existing build stock if not Listed, but could ask PC to note important buildings. 14 Agree. Renewable energy sources should be encouraged and developed in the valley. Chelwood CEL is an example A Question relationship of question to HDE6 as draft – should be separate policy of community schemes. Strong support for PMP. But (HDE6a) 15 Renewable provided no detrimental to character of surrounding and visual impact is minimised. Should be separate policy for CL Renewables 16 Agree A 17 Must be done sensitively. Do not like ground mounted solar panels or wind turbines. Don’t know re Renewables A Agree. Of major importance. Existing householders should be encouraged to install renewable/sustainable domestic energy A 18 generation also. Renewables a must. Should be incentivised. CV should have CL renewable energy projects 19 Agree – whichever is appropriate to the area and doesn’t compromised the setting and general character of the surroundings. A 35 Yes A 36 Yes. Support where appropriate. CL renewables – wind turbines, solar panels A 37 Yes. Support all renewables where appropriate, small scale wind turbines, NOT wind farms A 38 Important but not at any risk to the ‘look’ of the area. No large windmills or large areas of solar panels A 39 Yes. Support generally, but NOT wind A 40 Yes. Renewables great wherever appropriate and CL renewables whatever appropriate, A Govt has abandons zero carbon targets so policy needs to be amended. Suggest change ‘should’ to ‘must’ and incl definition A 24 of ‘sustainable development’ Strongly support. But would also oppose wind turbines. Keen on community systems shared by multiple households. CHP A 41 maybe. I think the renewable energy technologies will improve significantly over the next several years and we should be proactive in assessing these.

HDE7 33 Agree √ Traffic Impact 12 Agree √ 18 Agree √ 19 Agree √ 20 Agree √ HDE7a One of the main reasons for the change in both the look and the nature of the Chew Valley, as elsewhere, is the rise in NC use of the private motor car, (moving and stationary). A very large majority of people use cars to get about including for commuting to work. Policies which promote the close proximity of work and living will tend to reduce this. Another way to reduce these effects is the promotion of alternative means of transport including public transport, walking and cycling. 24 Abercrombie carried out an interesting piece of work in the 1960s when asked by government how to keep the traffic moving around the congested university/Bloomsbury area of London. He calculated the rise in road traffic and the space needed to accommodate all these vehicles and concluded that in order to keep it moving all you had to do was flatten all the buildings and build roads in their place.

HDE8 21 Parking spaces should be linked to size of dwelling. 2 is too few for 4 bed house Has been increased Parking domestic 25 Agree 26 Needs to be B&NES planning policy NC Encourage safe cycling & walking & car sharing to reduce need for vehicles CVNP evidence shows 30 increasing car use, so planning for it. 33 Who parks in their garage? Usually too small. Could some dwellings have one parking space to rear and out of sight of road? Design issue Developers should incl garages or covered parking spaces in planning apps to allow integration of parking within visually Design issue 34 acceptable development 31 1 space for a smaller car and 2nd. No other non-resident able to park there NC 4 Strongly agree A Planning permission should not be given unless there are 2 parking spaces. Integral garages not good as they often get A 11 absorbed into the property. Separate garages less likely to be used that way 19 Agree A 20 1+garage ok if used for parking, not converted into a room. 2 better A HDE8a Again, even with the caveat ‘the design is in accordance with other policies in the plan’ this policy is open to NC interpretation. Rather than ‘support...all new residential developments...’ this might be clearer along the lines: ‘all proposals 24 for new dwellings shall incorporate a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces for each dwelling.’ This of course assumes we are all happy with the consequences of introducing all these additional vehicles into the CV. 35 Yes A 38 Yes. Rural areas that have little or no public transport car usage is important, therefore parking is essential A 24 Suggest new dwellings all have a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces A 41 B&NES Planning policy in this area has been particularly weak. Witness Chew Magna Norton Lane and Old Surgery A developments. The view seems to be “give the residents a bus timetable and they won’t need a second car”. The impact of not enforcing HDE8 is on adjacent parking spaces which are essential to local shops etc.

HDE9 33 Agree √ Sustainable 34 Agree √ drainage 14 Agree √ 15 Agree √ 19 Agree √ 24 Should be a requirement √ 43 Existing buildings NC. Policy will be reviewed. 1. The Neighbourhood Plan will support and encourage alterations and additions to existing houses at risk of flooding, that will Consider mod to 3 parts. (new, help mitigate the risk, improve flood protection, and make the building more flood resilient (e.g. water proof/resilient existind,suds) materials, elevated/concrete floors, raised roof heights and additional storeys to relocate living areas above ground level). Also look at parking policy New housing and access roads 2. Any new development of dwelling houses, residential homes, social housing and their access roads in areas shown on the NC – discuss with EA and Environment Agency’s flood risk maps as having a 1% (1:100 years) or greater annual risk of flooding from watercourses or Drainage team. run-off, will not be supported.

√ HDE10 28 Agree. √ Community green 33 Disagree √ space 34 Agree √ 12 Agree √ 14 Agree √ 19 Agree √ 24 Should be a requirement √ √

HDE11 29 Agree √ Protection of 28 Agree. √ Green Spaces 33 Agree √ 34 Agree √ 2 Rectory field, Chew Stoke is wonderful community asset, much used √ Already in B&NES register 5 Agree √ 12 Agree √ 18 Agree √ 19 Agree √ 24 11a There is potential for conflict with other policies e.g the need to maintain open space between villages and settlements. NC 35 Agree √ 38 Green spaces are important √ √

HSE12 21 Agree √ Tree & Ancient 29 Agree √ hedgerow conservation 28 Agree. √ 33 Agree √ 34 Agree √ 12 Agree √ 19 Agree √ 24 Should be a requirement √ 35 Agree √

HDE13 21 Agree. Importance of much of EH as roosting & feeding ground for 15 species of bats is well known √ Green Corridors 22 Bats everywhere. Orchids on Breach Hill √ & Bio 23 Greenacres Farm. Wildflower meadow √ 26 Agree. √ 27 It is wide variety of wildlife that makes area important √ 29 Agree √ 28 Agree. Bats in attics in old buildings √ 33 Agree √ 34 Agree √ 31 Agree √ 1 See EH character assessment √ 2 Bats at Old Rectory field √ 4 Bats at Compton Martin Coombe, also orchids √ 5 Bats at Chew Magna reservoir √ 6 Bats in trees √ 12 Bats, owls and dormice √ 15 Needs addition to explicitly state that the NP ‘will not support any development for new buildings in Priority Habitats and See B&NES PMP SCNIs’. Lane S of Chew Magna bordering River Chew is SNA (506) and includes a SNCI (BN286) and Priority Habitat. Rare/notifiable NC species include otters, damsel/dragon flies and white clawed crayfish at Tunbridge 17 Agree. Wild flowers and wildfowl near Blagdon lake √ 19 Agree √ 36 Bats, otters, hares, deer at Coley and Hinton Blewett √ 37 Bats, otters, hares, deer at Coley and Hinton Blewett √

HD14 21 Agree. Importance of much of EH as roosting & feeding ground for 15 species of bats is well known √ Water Life Bio 22 Bats everywhere. Orchids on Breach Hill √ 29 Agree √ 28 Agree. √ 33 Agree √ 34 Compton Martin has pond with interesting flora √ 21 Agree √ 1 See EH character assessment √ 12 Agree √ 17 Agree √ 19 Agree √

HSE15 29 Agree √ Dark Skies policy 28 Agree. √ 33 Agree √ 34 Agree √ 2 Policy very important. Almost unique in this day and age and very special. √ 4 Agree √ 12 Agree √ 14 Agree √ 17 Agree √ 19 Agree √ 20 Agree √ 39 Agree √ 40 Agree √

BF1 25 Wording of policy unclear Reworded - C Retention of small 31 Locals need jobs A businesses 37 Agree √ 24 Supporting change of use does not promote retention of small businesses C – Change of Use is permitted – have to allow unless good reason not to

BF2 21 Not sure what means. Running volunteer shop in EH hard work. √ Protecting 22 State intervention in business is unprofitable √ Significant Facilities 23 Protect ACVs if necessary √ 26 Agree. Yes to general store, pubs & post offices √ 27 Community ownership of ACV under threat worth considering √ 29 Shop, post office & pub are important facilities in the Chew Valley √ 28 Agree re ACVs √ 30 Agree √ 33 No fast food takeaways, as nuisance & detrimental to traditional eateries. Yes to ACVs provided no live music licences because it's anti-social Not planning 4 Agree √ 5 Yes, on case by case basis √ 7 Who decides if ‘significant’? ACV for Yew Tree seems ridiculous √ 14 ACV: New Manor Farm Shop and tea rooms. Support farming diversification and tourism √ 15 Yes √ 17 Agree re ACVs √ 18 Agree to significant facilities being ACVs √ 19 Agree re ACVs √ 20 ACVs for pubs, shops, post office & village halls √ 35 Agree re ACVs √ 36 Agree re ACVs √ 37 Agree re ACVs √ 38 Agree re ACVs √ 39 Agree re ACVs √ 40 Agree re ACVs. √ 24 Policy should be ‘change of use will be resisted’ Must be positive 41 You have included CV School in BF5. All our Primary Schools and pre-schools are vital assets within their respective villages. Outside the scope of NP Some have been threatened in the past and this may happen again at some time. Their local community value needs to be recognized and protected.

BF3 21 Up to a point. Do not wish to see CV become like Cheddar Gorge √ Diversification for 22 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism √ tourism 23 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism √ 26 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism √ 27 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism √ 28 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism √ 30 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism √ 33 Yes but only if within existing hard-standing areas, otherwise it could be a route to housebuilding via change of use Would have to comply with applications other policies 34 Want central effort to support dairy herd. Not Planning Ditto Any diversification needs consideration of environmental impact. 1 Far too loose & open to abuse. Disagree – CV is agricultural area Ditto 2 Chew Moos is example of successful diversification. Great increase in traffic due to airport expansion 4 Agree to ACVs. Support farming diversification and tourism in support of businesses 6 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism 7 Agree but if there are facilities and parking NC 8 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism 11 CV area should have more accommodation for tourists, certainly more B&Ss and decent hotel. Perhaps one by lake. There are NC good places to eat but few places to stay. 12 Question of scale, e.g. local cider & cheese farm is too big in scale Would have to comply with other policies 14 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism 15 Support farming diversification and tourism but only if centred close to main farmhouse and farm building cluster. Ditto 17 Disagree. Depends what it is. No to farming diversification and tourism NC 18 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism 19 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism as long as it doesn’t impinge adversely on the character of the area or the quality NC of life of residents 20 Better public transport would help bring people in and let locals support neighbouring attractions NC 35 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism √ 36 Agree: Farming diversification, would support tourism if infrastructure more suitable √ 37 Agree: Farming diversification √ 38 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism, subject to suitability for the area √ 39 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism √ 40 Agree: Farming diversification and tourism √

BF4 26 Agree. √ Community 14 Agree √ Facilities 15 Agree √ 17 Agree. √ 18 Agree: √ 20 Agree √

BF5 20 Agree A CV School 24 BF5 Shouldn’t the CVNP support the establishment by the school of a development plan which seeks to take into account the Great if they do anticipated future needs of the school and interested community groups in such a way as to make best use of the site and the facilities? 37 Disagree NC

BF6 15 Agree √ Chew Magna car 24 Despite the usual caveats this is an open invitation to develop car parks in Chew Magna. NC but would have to have park regard for other policies.

BF7 22 Should be off road park A Parking - non 23 Parking a problem in most places A domestic 24 Who is making the requirement for on-street parking? Is it the developer or the CVNP? Why no mention of off-street parking? Traffic impact assessment. On street is of most concern. 30 Encourage & support safer walking & cycle routes NC 33 Car sharing website for people with regular commutes NC 31 No long stay car parks NC 17 On street parking should not increase A 38 Parking needs to be provided as there is little or no public transport A 41 Encouragement of local business is important. The provision of adequate parking is important BUT should also ensure that A long stay workers do not impact on local shops and services.

BF8 21 Power – 30 second or less ‘blips’ P ) Power & Water 23 Not a problem ) 27 Low water pressure W ) 29 Power dips and low water pressure W ) 28 Power P ) 33 Power – Occasionally P ) 34 Occasional P ) 31 Several power cuts P ) Not included as policy. Moved to Aspiration 4 Almost daily P ) 5 Power – yes P ) 6 Power – yes P ) 7 Power – occasionally P ) 8 Power P ) 18 Yes, occasionally P ) 20 Water, occasionally W ) 35 Power P ) 36 Low water pressure at HB36 W ) 37 Agree, Power and water P W ) 38 Power P ) 39 Power P ) 40 Power P )

BF9 21 Agree ) Mobile coverage 22 Agree. Vital ) 26 Agree. ) 27 Agree ) 29 Agree ) 28 Agree ) 30 Agree ) 33 Agree ) 1 No if it means more masts ) 4 Agree ) 5 Agree ) 6 Agree: No 1 priority ) 7 Agree: essential ) Mostly agree 8 Agree. Build new phone mast now ) 12 No, own adequate ) 17 Agree ) 20 Agree ) 35 Agree ) 36 Agree ) 37 Agree ) 38 Agree. Better internet/phone would encourage people to work from home ) 39 Agree ) 40 Agree )

BF10 21 Agree. ) Fibre 22 Agree. Vital ) 24 Open-ended commitment but looks for a mere 25mps. Less developed parts of the world achieve 1G up and down. In keeping with PMP, deemed realistic. broadband 26 Agree. ) 27 Agree ) 29 Agree ) 28 Agree ) 30 Agree ) 33 Agree ) 4 Agree ) Mostly agree 5 Agree ) 6 Agree: No 1 priority ) 7 Agree: essential ) 8 Agree: Truespeed are coming.... ) 12 No: own adequate ) 17 Agree ) 20 Agree ) 35 Agree ) 36 Agree ) 37 Agree ) 38 Agree ) 38 Agree ) Mostly agree 40 Agree ) 41 Agree. Particularly broadband which is currently unreliable, unpredictable and ludicrously slow. Would not state a target of ) 25Mbps which in 5 years time will look lame. Broadband is a basic enabling technology for business and entertainment.

A1 21 B&NES do a reasonable job on maintaining footpaths, where landowners allow this. CV Lake cycle 22 Bristol Water should pay for cycle path path 23 Yes to cycle path. PRoW network mostly good 26 Not Chew Magna 27 Maintenance of existing more important, more pressure on landowners 30 Yes to cycle path 32 Definitely support. Lake hugely underused as leisure facility 34 Consideration needed for existing users, e.g. bird watchers any scheme would have to be fully checked for detrimental environmental impacts 31 Some over high ground 2 As footpath not cycleway as could become race track 4 Agree 5 Agree 6 Agree 7 Agree 10 ”Imagine if the lake was encircled by a beautiful walk/cycle track" - what a nightmare! Large parts of Chew Valley Lake are any scheme would have to be designated SSSIs and yet, instead of protecting them and their natural beauty, you seem intent on opening these up to fully checked for detrimental disturbance, thereby greatly diminishing their value to wildlife. Why? environmental impacts

There is already a cyclepath along a large stretch of the west side of the lake but most cyclists never use it, preferring to cycle along the road. What a waste of effort and natural resources that was.

I can see that there is a demand for greater access to the open countryside but surely this should not be to the detriment of sensitive habitats, like those at the lake. There is plenty of more robust habitat that could be made more accessible - how about encouraging local farmers to allow greater access to some of their fields? 11 Lake perimeter footpath/cyclepath good idea, but cycle path can only work if it is kept clear (clean for cycling) ) 12 Yes & swimming area ) 14 It was a B&NES adopted project in 2001. Would benefit health/safety/business/families. B&NES does excellent work on ) PRoWs 17 Disagree ) Generally agree 18 Agree ) 35 Agree ) 36 Agree re cycleway ) 39 Agree re cycleway ) 40 Agree re cycleway ) 41 Agree )

A2 26 No ) Business & 27 Possible ) Economy in CV 29 Yes ) 28 Yes ) 2 No but Stoke Inn does wonderful job ) Overall - yes 6 Yes ) 8 Maybe ) 12 Yes ) 17 Disagree )

A3 21 Occasionally. Most of my journeys are to Wells or Bath, so 26 applicable ) Better public 22 Occasionally. Always use park ride but go there by car ) transport 23 Daily. Not badly served. Needs smaller buses. Service need to Bath ) x 25 More frequent 672 bus service. Drive to Bishopsworth and catch bus ) 26 Occasionally. Public transport room for improvement ) If CVNP aspiration would cover! 27 Occasionally. Excellent idea, better than meandering route to Bristol ) 30 Occasionally. ) 32 Leave public transport as is ) x 34 No ) x 31 Occasionally. There will always be a need for public transport ) 2 Not yet. Is there economic reason for increasing public transports? ) 4 No don’t use. Inter village transport to local facilities for those that don’t drive. ) 5 No, not unless frequent enough for normal business/working hours ) 7 Is non-existent. Dreadful for those who cannot drive. Wary of giving it up ) 11 Weekly minibus from each village to Dr/Dentist ) 12 Yes, weekly ) 14 Weekly: A37 to connect to 376. Enhance public transport if possible ) 15 Occasionally. Only if impact on existing parking in key villages, e.g. Chew Magna is not compromised by those using it. Needs ) improving if it is to be better used. 16 Yes, Weekly, but only in addition to present bus service. It is most important to keep present bus services ) It would cover 17 Yes, Weekly ) 18 Yes, Daily to Bath, Occasionally. Need property daily bus service many work in Bath.as well as Bristol x Bath! 19 Occasionally ) 20 Very important for young people particularly. Public transport insufficient, mostly inaccessible in East Harptree. Public ) transport is vital 35 Yes to 27 and 28! ) 36 Yes, Weekly ) 37 Yes, Weekly ) 38 Public transport cannot replace the car, so little point in using it x 24 Transport needs to be available and affordable )

A4 21 No strong views. Roadside parking often acts as traffic calming ) Traffic calming 22 Unnecessary. No one obeys 20 mph x 23 Where needed ) 26 Yes, In some cases. Dangerous junction at junction of Denny Lane onto 50mph limit ) 27 Traffic speeds need to be kept in check but calming urbanises. Street onto A368 at Ubley, junction between C Martin & W ) Harptree 30 Yes to traffic calming ) 32 Would like speed camera in village. Several accidents at Fairash ) 34 Support generally but not excessive road furniture. Crossroads by chicken shed and up past Wellsway ) 31 Denny Lane, Walley Court ) 2 Not if it means humps ) Generally as these are very specific, the Aspiration has been removed & ought to be PC issues 3 Traffic calming-I can not see a reference to this. If there will be an increased amount of traffic in the Chew Valley it will ) essential that in certain critical points that traffic calming schemes are introduced. I think this is particularly relevant near to schools but generally our villages will need more traffic calming if there is going to be more traffic-which must follow if there is going to be more development. I live in East Harptree and this is particularly relevant here. For reasons which I am covering in an email to Julie O’Rourke I think that a traffic calming scheme needs to be introduced at the bottom of Church Lane close to the School. That is my parochial view but I suspect there will be other examples of the need to reduce the speed at which drivers travel through the Chew Valley villages and particularly close to schools. 5 Support. Corner of B3130 by Chew reservoir ) 6 Already have 20mph. A37 Pensford Hill ) 7 Yes but only if well designed, not all are. Plethora of signs is horrid. Bristol Road – Pilgrims Way ) 8 No ) 12 Unnecessary but something to discourage massive long traffic on A368 ) 14 In some locations. A37/B3130, A368/road from Chew Stoke ) 17 Squire Lane, Ubley on to A368 ) 19 Yes ) 20 Crossroads at East Harptree more dangerous since installation of traffic calming ) 37 Yes ) 40 Yes ) 41 Think the widespread inconsistent use of 20mph is just plain irritating. The real problem is enforcement of the 30mph limits. ) Traffic calming would help.

A5 21 Yes. Don’t commute & always car share where poss. ) Car sharing 23 If needed ) scheme 26 Yes ) 27 Could work for those who would use it ) 29 Yes ) 28 Yes ) Generally felt that internet etc. had available schemes. Pensioners can do via parish notice board 30 Yes ) 34 Support in principle ) 31 Possible ) 5 No ) 6 Yes ) 8 No 11 Car sharing scheme good idea but those with most need may not have access to a website. Younger people sharing journeys ) would be good idea. 12 Yes ) 15 Discouragement of development in flood areas 17 May be difficult to organise 19 Yes ) 20 Yes ) 35 Yes ) 36 Yes ) 38 Yes ) 39 Yes ) 40 Yes )

Q33 21 Housing density Placemaking Plan has policy for this. Are there any 23 Issue with ex poultry farm at Fairash Not NP issue other issues 26 B&NES must maintain opposition to Govt fracking Placemaking Plan and NPPF policies on this. important to 27 Part of Blagdon Lake in CVNP, so should refer to ‘lakes’ but use CV lake as main example A. Corrected you 30 Fracking would devastate the area and should be prevented B&NES PMP has strong policies. 34 Yes, expansion of airport with increase in light pollution. Extension to businesses outside CVNP but with visual impact on it. NC Increasing use of marquees – should be temporary. Bad planning decisions leading to allowance of others. Dismissive attitude of B&NES towards PCs, especially in CVNP area.. Serious consideration of swimming pool in CVNP. NC Any development within or adjacent to AONB to be agreed by committee not by single officer and should have sufficient Not something the NP can consultation period change. 31 Need to look after older residents NC 1 Maintain roads, improve drainage systems, protect rural environment NC 2 HDE12: Sycamore in Rectory field, Chew Stoke should be noted as Veteran Tree Check with PC In conjunction with policies HDE2 & HDE7 proposals for new development should consider likely impact in community This is taken into account with infrastructure, e.g. schools a planning application, but not something that can be controlled via NP 3 If it is a given that there has to be more housing in the Chew Valley it is critical that in order to sustain our communities there NC is also adequate provision for other facilities-schools, village halls, churches, shops etc etc. I know education is not within the ambit of the CVNP but equally there is a limited amount of land that can be developed and that could be in competition with the requirement for additional facilities such as schools. All in all the CVNP needs at least to give a nod to the wider strategic plan and any development for housing has to be within the context of that wider plan and some development should not be permitted if the land in question is more appropriately developed to provide say for a school on the land in question. At the moment the CVNP seems to sit in isolation of the wider strategic plan and that needs to rectified. 7 Swimming pool at Leisure Centre, footpath around lake 12 We have 2 lakes but no open air swimming facilities NC 18 Chew Valley needs public swimming pool for schools and clubs and public at non-school times Aspiration 20 Swimming pool Aspiration 36 Appalling condition of roads Not a planning issue 37 Poor road condition Not a planning issue 41 I should like to see more protection of wildlife and in particular an aspiration to improve our species diversity and, particularly, NC numbers where threatened. We live in an area where we should be more aware and pro-active. As an example the planting of trees. We lost our elms NC which were so plentiful in the valley 40 years ago. We are now losing other species such as ash and chestnut. Likewise the serious reduction in bird numbers. We need to be more positive about what we want to do and be more responsible because the losses are happening in our patch and on our watch. The CVNP mentions a swimming pool. We need other facilities to support leisure activities. How about a football clubhouse or NC two; or maybe an athletic field/track; or a cycle sport venue? Further to the above I should like to see the CVNP aspire to provide more facilities for young people. Not a planning issue I think a big hole in the plan is movement of people by other than cars. Not a planning issue Safe Routes to School was once a campaign but seems to have faded away. Still exists The Chew Lake cycle route would be wonderful as a leisure facility. BUT even more useful would be footpaths and cycle ways NC safe from traffic (not just a few Sustrans signposts sending one up and down exhausting byways!) Compared to the continent we are philistines when it comes to walk/cycle ways. For example, go behind hedges to create safe routes as they do in Germany & elsewhere.

Other 22 Must have 2/3 bed houses in every development, even small ones NC comments 29 In planning for the future we need to reflect on our experience of the past. At the turn of the 20th century places like NC Totterdown and Knowle in Bristol were rural, mainly fields. Whitchurch was a small village ‘miles’ from Bristol. Admittedly there was no planning control then but there has been since the 1950s - for over 75 years - and now Whitchurch is part of Bristol and still spreading fast and now the density of housing in Bristol at this time is high.

The demand for housing generally over the last 100 years will be nothing in comparison to the current and burgeoning demand that is confronting us now and over the next 100 years. We have to plan for the next 100 years; we owe it to future generations.

What are we going to do to stop North East Somerset being subsumed in the same way as Bristol has done with its surrounding villages? We have to accept and convince our local authority that there needs to be a limit to how much small settlements can take in the way of development without losing their character and without damaging the rural landscape surrounding them. Perhaps there should be a plan for key settlements to expand but define the extent of that expansion in advance. There has to be a plan, it can't just be allowed evolve, to spread and sprawl. Like obesity, it's not healthy for our environment. 42 I do agree with your with your aims in the CVNP Policy Options. However I do have a concern. The aim of getting more NC. Business policies BF1,2,3,4 business in the Chew Valley is a grand one. After reading the Community Consultation I feel that any business might think are around change of use for twice before coming to the Chew Valley. There are a good number of policies in the plan in regard to what businesses should existing businesses. Beyond comply with before setting up. I might be wrong but I feel there is not much to encourage a business to come to the Chew that the policies require Valley in the policy. What can we offer them? Not just policy restrictions. provision of parking and broadband for new businesses. 24 There is a pattern where the NP declares support for proposals, (sometimes ‘any proposal’), which offer something deemed NC desirable. Despite caveats, this could have unintended consequence. It would be more likely to achieve the intended aims if the policy stated that the desirable outcome was a precondition for support thereby leaving all other issues for discussion and a decision to approve or reject open based on all the issues not just one. SUSTAINABILITY for this neighbourhood (amongst all others) to have a future it needs to be sustainable and as we all now know this comprises elements of environmental economic and social sustainability. To be environmentally sustainable: 1. All new buildings need to be constructed to a standard far beyond the bare legal minimum represented by the Building Regulations. Although the national target for homes to be ‘Zero Carbon’ from 2016 has been dropped, there is no reason the CVNP should not promote its own target. As the Code for Sustainable Homes has been abandoned it makes sense to adopt the Passivhaus standard which has a strong scientific base, has been widely adopted across Europe and beyond, has been shown to work, and, applies to all building types not just houses. (There are other measures currently in use in Europe, USA and elsewhere, but Passivhaus is the only one with a wide base and a degree of expertise established in this country). 2. Our use of energy needs to be steered away from fossil fuels and to renewables. Fracking is environmentally damaging and moves energy production in exactly the opposite direction to that which is needed. Solar farms would be better placed on the roofs of sheds, new and existing, rather than covering fields. All new agricultural industrial and commercial buildings should be fitted with integrated solar photo-voltaic panels (PVs). Existing buildings of the same should be retrofitted with PVs.. 3. The impact of the movement of people and goods must be constrained. Personal transport has been getting financially cheaper while environmentally more costly. To be socially sustainable: 1. Housing, for purchase and rent, needs to be provided so that local people can afford to live in the area. Rented property needs to remain in the rented sector. A positive programme identifying potential sites with social landlord partners should be undertaken. To be economically sustainable: 1. Jobs which pay need to be available for local people in the local area. 2. Transport needs to be available and affordable 3. Energy needs to be available and affordable 43 Drainage in Policies reviewed.

postcodes

POSTCODE NUMBER OF REPLIES The Chew Valley Neighbourhood Plan summer 2015 community consultation on policy options - Results Not Given 6 BS39 5 3 These results are the amalgamated result of the paper forms and email responses (34), the online survey monkey forms (9). Note 3 of the email BS40 6 18 responses were on specific issues. TOTAL RESPONSES 43 BS40 8 15

BS41 8 1

Respondants Postcodes Not Given BS39 5 Respondants by Postcodes BS40 6 18 2%14% BS40 8 18 BS41 8 7% 14 15 35% 9

5 6 42% 3 1 0 Not Given BS39 5 BS40 6 BS40 8 BS41 8

Broadly agree with policies? GENERAL 40

Q1 - Do you broadly agree with 36

ANSWER NUMBER 30

Blank 6

Not Sure 1 20 Yes 36

No 0

10

6 0 1 0 No Blank Not Sure Yes

1 Q2 - Which policies do you feel

ANSWER

Blank 10

All 7

HDE1 13

HDE2 16

HDE3 16

HDE4 12 Most agreed with policies (NB: - Could indicate more than one) HDE5 9 16 16 16 HDE6 8

HDE7 6 HDE8 5 13 12 HDE9 5 12 11 11 HDE10 5 10 HDE11 8 9 8 HDE12 7 8 8 8 HDE13 11 7 7 7 6 HDE14 8 5 5 5 5 4 HDE15 11 4 BF2 3 3 BF4 7 1 1 BF5 5 0 Blank All HDE1 HDE2 HDE3 HDE4 HDE5 HDE6 HDE7 HDE8 HDE9 HDE10HDE11HDE12HDE13HDE14HDE15 BF2 BF4 BF5 BF6 BF9 BF10 BF6 1

BF9 1 *002: dark sky policy very important and special

BF10 4

2 Most disagreed with policies (NB: - Could indicate more than one) Q3 - Which policies do you feel you most strongly disagree 40 ANSWER

Blank/none 35

All 0 35

HDE1 0 30 HDE2 2

HDE3 0

HDE4 0 20 HDE5 3

HDE6 3

HDE8 1

HDE10 1 10 HDE15 0

BF3* 3

a1 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 3 1 1 a5 1 0 *001: too loose - open to abuse Blank/none All HDE1 HDE2 HDE3 HDE4 HDE5 HDE6 HDE8 HDE10 HDE15 BF3* a1 a5

3 HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT HDE1 30 Q4 - Rural Landscape character (HDE1): 27 Do you have any different ideas ? 23 0013: Detailed attachment re NPPF

Blank 10 0022: include older properties - no new doors etc 15 0021: take account of ash dieback No 27 0025: much of the landscape is and always has been man made, so we ought to let it evolve Yes 6 8 10 6 0030: need policy on fracking as it would effect landsc, traffic and views 0 0034: ensure we address trees and hedgerows Blank No Yes

HDE2 002: Do not build more “look alike” properties. Contemporary ONE-OFFs are often attractive. 22 003: Include village design statements where done as SPDs 22 005: Working villages, not chocolate boxes, added to in various styles for 100s Q5 - Settlement build character (HDE2) 17 of years, modern should be allowed. Do you have any different ideas ? 007: Design/style might be inhibited, don’t want country pastiche, good design 11 13 is key. Blank 8 8 0011: mixed style developments, not uniform, i.e.: stone and rendered, mixed No 22 6 roof line and frontages.

Yes 13 0012: Room for eco-houses 0 0013: mDetailed attachment re NPPF Blank No Yes 0025: we ought to let it evolve 0030: need to highlight imp of sust building and low energy use HDE3 0034: ensure we address trees and hedgerows 0033: address colours of commercial units and agricultural buildings 30 0031: dont always want traditional, - move towards present/modern 28 Q6 - Important Views (HDE3) 23 Do you have any different ideas ? 15 0021: not sure from graphics Blank 13 13 0025: much of the landscape is and always has been man made, so we ought to let it evolve No 28 8 0023: all views 0034: all views in and out are important x-parish and x-authority communication Yes 2 2 0 Blank No Yes

4 HDE3/4 001: Those in the village character assessments, esp E.Harptree 0020: lake from e.harp and mendips Q7 - Important landscape views (HDE3 /4) 30 002: View from Chew Magna to Chew Stoke (of Mendips) by road is delightful. 0017: lake from ubley south 30 004: Views with either Lake, Compton martin Combe & hills to either side Do you have any ideas ? 0019: in and around hinton Blewett 005: Horizons and skylines 23 Blank 13 006: Norton lane looking to the lake (over Chew M) 0028: top of EH, above CMtn, Prosp Stile 007: Top of School lane (shore ditch), views from Breach Hill Lane, Views of the No 0 15 Lake 008: Chew Valley Lake 0014: nempnet sw over blagdon, prospect style, dumpers stone bridge up the Yes 30 13 011: Skyline 8 river chew 0012: mendips to lake 0 0026: knowl hill over lake, norton lane to lake 0 0013: hard to pin point, some will get missed Blank No Yes 0021:dundry south, monarchs way north, smith hill to green down 0029: entire skyline - in and out!

0032: the lakes and the hills 0031:knowl hill, ubley coombe, pagans hill, top of Harptree hill, c.martin pond, 0033:all!! prospect stile, EH top of village 0034:aonb/ubley/blagdon lake/up to airport

HDE6 24 0027: depends on scale! 0031: yes in future as technology advances 23 001: Solar panels, farms and Wind farms ugly, plus pylons! Q8 - Community Renewables (HDE6) 18 002: Fear of field covered in solar panels 005: Re HDE6, encourage renovations of older buildings. desire for community led? 006: Already investing!! 12 0033: NO Solar panels, farms or Windturbines Blank/maybe 12 12 0021: good for householders to decide No 8 6 032: more Wind turbines 8 0022: impossible to manage 034: general support BUT caveats! Impact/scale/noise etc Yes 23 0030: need low carbon renewables 0 0041: Strongly support. But would also oppose wind turbines. Keen on Blank/maybe No Yes 0027: mendip scarp @ ubley and CM. HB. south community systems shared by multiple households. from breach hill and ??

HDE8 30

Q9 - Parking - domestic (HDE8) 23 25 Do you have other ideas? 001: Legislate to make people use garages 004: Strongly agree 15 Blank 13 011: Not integral garages. 13 No 25 8 0020: but do not let them convert the garage! Yes 5 5 0021: proportion to size, 2 is too few for larger 4 bed properties 0 0030: encorage cycling, walking and car sharing Blank No Yes

5 HDE11 30

002: Rectory Field, Chew Stoke Q10 - Protection of green spaces (HDE11) 23 22 010: This is so important that the idea of having a cycleway through SSSI is a Do you have other ideas? 20 nightmare! 15 Blank 20

No 22 8 Yes 1 1 0 Blank No Yes

Q11 - What type of affordable housing would you like to see? type of affordable Blank Social TYPE NUMBER OF REPLIES Cheaper market Blank 5 Other 7% 12% None Social 5

Cheaper market 22 19% 12% 001 and 20:26 27 29 Quality 2 and 3 bedroomed at market rate Other 8 002: Chew Stoke has done their part

None 3 004: Enable the young to stay in the valley 005: Help to buy, for the young

006: All needed - siting critical

007: No more needed in Chew Stoke 51% 009: Cheaper, 1/2 bed, £100-150k, we need more than family homes 011: 2/3 family homes, 2/3 bungalows,

012: Quality 2 bed

0027: warden controlled for elderly

0017: local connection

0028: downsizing bungalows 0041: Housing suitable for younger families at economic price.

6 Prefered downsize property type Q12 - Downsizing type? (NB: - Could indicate more than one) House with less bedrooms TYPE NUMBER OF REPLIES Bungalow Flat Not Relevant 28 Other 5% House with less bedrooms 10 5%

Bungalow 7

Flat 1

Other 1 53% 37% 002 and 21: Of a quality build

006: annexe with family

0020: 2/3 bed, parking, near facilities, small gdn. 0041: Small (eg. 2 bed) accessible within reach of village amenities.

sheltered type Retirement Village Q13 - Sheltered housing Warden controlled Flat TYPE NUMBER OF REPLIES Small group, warden linked Not Relevant 31 14% Not Relevant Retirement Village 6 7% Warden controlled 3 Flat 0 7% Small group, warden linked 3

002: Not needed for myself, but it is important 72% 007: Not in Chew Stoke

011: Chew Magna or West Harptree 0041: Would go to an existing complex elsewhere.

7 HDE6 004: As long as adhere to HDE1 and 2! Q14 - Renewable/Low carbon view (HDE6) 20 20 002: as long as not unsightly, so probably only heat pumps. Not solar panels on replies roofs. 15 17 001: all ugly. reduce demand. use nuclear. Blank 17 006: Improve insulation 10 +ve 20 0013: see letter -ve 3 5 mixed 3 3 3 0 Blank +ve -ve mixed

Q15 - Acceptable community renewables-1 Answers suggest…. replies CHP 6 Blank 26 35% Solar 9 None Acceptable 2 Bio 3 Answered, see chart 15 60% Anaerobic for Local use 2 5% Water 2

Wind 4 001: Keep the land for agriculture Blank 007: Solar if suitable screened site None Acceptable All 3 012: Solar for village halls Answered, see chart 026 small to medium scale 025 solar and wind - plus look at others

027: not at expense of the views - so siting must be done carefully, Not turbines

8 HDE13/14 Q16 - Specific habitats/species 22 are you aware of any? 21 0015: see extra sheet: NDP will not support any dev in priority habitats and 17 Blank 13 SNCIs - pls read sheet Species: Bats, CMn Coombe, Willow, Bottom, yes 21 11 13 Lake, CS Rectory field, owns at lake, wild fowl on lake no 9 9 6 Species: Orchids, orchids at breach hill, , CMn 0 Woods, greenacres farm wild flower meadow 0 Blank yes no Species: Bats, Bats - east Harp, Owls, Dormice Kingfishers, Bee Orchids.

Old orchards in and surrounding villages, bats, orchids in nearby woods, Bath Asparagus adjacent LItton Lakes and Herb Paris in Harptree Coombe.

we are losing our swallows, house martins and swifts

BUSINESS AND FACILITIES BF1 30 27 Q17 - BF1 - retaining small businesses 23 do you have other ideas? 15 Blank 15 15 no 27 8 yes 1 1 0 Blank no yes

9 BF2 30

Q18 - BF2 - protecting facilities 23 25 do you have other ideas? 15 Blank 25 16

no 16 8

yes 2 2 007: Need to define significant 0 Blank no yes

create some ACVs Q18 - would you like to see some ACVs 18 do you have other ideas? 17 14 Blank 13 026: General stores, pubs and POs 13 no 8 027: And community ownership worth considering 9 yes 17 005 and 23: On a case by case basis 8 some 4 021: Not sure what these are?? 5 unclear 1 4 0028: shops, Pos and pubs 1 0 Blank no yes someunclear

BF3 30

23 23 Q19 - BF3 - farm diversification 15 would you support it? 11 Blank 11 8 001: Agricultural area, needs more support to keep agricultural.

yes 23 1 002: Chew Moo is a wonderful example! 0 no 1 Blank yes no maybe 2

10 BF3 30 Q20- BF3 /A2 - Encourage tourism 007: only if facilities and parking 23 would you support it? 25 011: More accommodation, B+Bs, decent hotel

Blank 11 15 002: if traffic isn't an issue yes 25 021: but only to a point - not Cheddar!! 8 11 no 4 019: as long as no adv effect on residents 4 3 y/n 3 0 Blank yes no y/n

BF7 30

Q21 - BF7 Parking non-domestic 23 25 001: Legislate to make people use garages 004: Strongly agree Do you have other ideas? 011: Not integral garages. 15 16 I agree, but in central Chew Magna the only way foreward I can see is to build new car park centre Blank 16 Chew Magna under existing car park 8 No 25 car parks instead of parking in the road Chew Magna a problem traffic flow difficult and not enough car parking spacesm

2 0030: cycle and walk Yes 2 0 Blank No Yes

11 outages no power Q22 - Power outages - BF8 water Blank TYPE NUMBER OF REPLIES Blank 10 23% 23% no 10

power 18

water 5 12%

004: Almost daily

027: Low water pressure is the norm - not the exception 42%

BF9&10 40

Q23 - BF9 Support faster connectivity 30 31 for internet and mobile 20 Blank 11 001: Legislate to make people use garages 004: Strongly agree yes 31 10 011: Not integral garages. 11 0041: Particularly broadband which is currently unreliable, unpredictable and no 1 1 ludicrously slow. Would not state a target of 25Mbps which in 5 years time will 0 Blank yes no look lame. Broadband is a basic enabling technology for business and entertainment.

12 ASPIRATIONS

A1 30 Q24 - A1 Support perimeter path 29 23 Blank 11 15 yes 29

no 2 8 11 As footpath Only 1 2 1 0 Blank yes Asno footpath Only

A1 30 Q25 - A1 are there any other paths

to enhance 23 24 027: its more about maintaining existing and working with land owners Blank 24 0041: I think a big hole in the plan is movement of people by other than cars. Safe Routes to School was once a campaign but seems to 15 have faded away. The Chew Lake cycle route would be wonderful as a leisure facility. BUT even more useful would be footpaths and yes 7 cycle ways safe from traffic (not just a few Sustrans signposts sending one up and down exhausting byways!) Compared to the continent no 10 8 10 we are philistines when it comes to walk/cycle ways. For example, go behind hedges to create safe routes as they do in Germany & 7 elsewhere. maybe 2 2 0 Blank yes no maybe

A3 30 Q26 - Would you use a link bus?

23 Yes- frequency 22 Blank 22 15 yes 10 Daily 2 no 10 8 10 10 Weekly 5 maybe 1 1 Occasionally 14 0 Blank yes no maybe 027: an excellent idea - better than meandering!!

13 A3 18 Q27 - Keep buses as they are 17 16 14 Blank 9 9 yes 16 9 no 17 5 maybe 1 1 0 Blank yes no maybe 018: to Bath!!

A3 A2 30 22 Q28 - Get rid of the buses Q29 - Would you use a business hub 21 23 17 22 Blank 22 19 Blank 8 15 11 yes 1 yes 8

no 19 8 no 21 6 8 8 6 maybe 1 1 1 maybe 6 0 0 Blank yes no maybe Blank yes no maybe

A2 30 Q30 - Do you support traffic calming 014 026: in some areas 020:unnecc in some areas 23 018:yes but 20mph is a bit too slow! 023 but only where needed Blank 21 21 15 027: keep speeds down - but too much tc urbanises the yes 13 villages 13 0041: Think the widespread inconsistent use of 20mph is just 8 no 8 8 plain irritating. The real problem is enforcement of the 30mph limits. Traffic calming would help. maybe 1 1 0 Blank yes no maybe

14 A2 004: highfield lane/yew tree lane; harptree hill with A368 017: squire lane to a368 - ubley Q31 - Do you know any dangerous junctions 24 23 007: bristol rd/pilgrims way 023 most ! 18 005: b3130/by Chew Magna reservoir

Blank 23 006: Pensford hill 026: Denny lane to wally Rd - 50mph!! 12 14 yes 14 013: Fair ash farm 0041: Top of Battle Lane junction with High St, CM. Bottom of Wellsway (Harptree Hill) junction with no 6 6 018: top cross /pagans hill 6 A368 Winford Road junction with A38. 020:xroads at E.H since traffic calming! 0 Blank yes no 014: a37/b3130 a368/chew stoke road

027: ubley - the street to a368, junta between CM and WH

A2 20 19 Q32 - Would you support car sharing 15 16

10 Blank 19 8 yes 16 5 017: hard to organise no 8 027: not for me - but a sensible idea 0 Blank yes no

15 Q33 - Other issues

Blank 14

no 5

consider school places 1

swimming pool at leisure centre 2 002: Sycamore in rectory Field swimming at lake 2

roads and drainage 1

discourage devt in or near flood areas 1

add veteran trees 1

housing density and guidance on WHERE built 1

fairash farm needs something doing 1

need firm opposition to fracking 2

hde14a - blagdon lake - part is in the CVNP area- so refer more generally to “the water” not “the lake” 1

Couldn't add specific housing, I think it is important to have affordable housing for the youth of the area as they want to become 1 independant the cycleway around the lake as it is at present is rarely used by cyclists who persist in using the road. They say thorns from the 1 hedges destroy their tyres. I see this as a failure and a once beautiful grass verge now concreted over. The route follows the road with little view of the lake so doesn't even make a good walking path. I would love more walking paths locally, just very narrow modest paths, but in beautiful places, not between a hedge and a fast road. Also, relating to your question 4 above: I have no need for social housing, yet another set of flats somewhere for our elderly to enable them to stay in Chew Magna should I feel be considered. There is already a cycle path which is unused by cyclist who prefer to hold up traffic by cycling sometimes 2 - 4 abreast - don't 1 waste more money on cyclisst give a footpath to pedestrians instead. Which would give a safe place for locals to walk instead of encouraging swarms of cyclists from outside the area Q2 doesn't allow me to specify anything. 1 extra comment - thank you!!

In Policy HDE14 I would include the River Chew as well as Chew Valley lake. In Policy HDE 15 I suggest formally stating the 1 intention never to permit street lighting as the phrase 'during operational hours' could mean all night for a street. I would have preferred the opportunity to comment on each policy individually - i am concerned that you will not get an accurate picture of residents' feedback as the survey misses out some policies. I should like to see more protection of wildlife and in particular an aspiration to improve our species diversity and, particularly, 1 numbers where threatened. We live in an area where we should be more aware and pro-active. As an example the planting of trees. We lost our elms which were so plentiful in the valley 40 years ago. We are now losing other species such as ash and chestnut. Likewise the serious reduction in bird numbers. We need to be more positive about what we want to do and be more responsible because the losses are happening in our patch and on our watch.

The CVNP mentions a swimming pool. We need other facilities to support leisure activities. How about a football clubhouse or two; or maybe an athletic field/track; or a cycle sport venue?

Further to the above I should like to see the CVNP aspire to provide more facilities for young people.

I think a big hole in the plan is movement of people by other than cars. Safe Routes to School was once a campaign but seems to have faded away. The Chew Lake cycle route would be wonderful as a leisure facility. BUT even more useful would be footpaths and cycle ways safe from traffic (not just a few Sustrans signposts sending one up and down exhausting byways!) Compared to the continent we are philistines when it comes to walk/cycle ways. For example, go behind hedges to create safe routes as they do in Germany & elsewhere. A4 Printed sumbission fro Chew Valley Flood Forum - see Response document.

16