24th April 2015

The Big Picture

Please note: This page was last updated in March 2016… but needs updating :) 


It has been tricky to pin things down, but this is where we are…

big-picture-info1

Secretary of State’s decision

  • After six months of delays, on 18 September 2015 the Secretary of State approved Policy CS13 and the housing target of 20,985 over the plan period (2006-2026).
  • As a result of the Secretary of State’s intervention, Policy CS13 (the ‘housing requirement’) is now part of the development plan.

Shortfall

  • Current capacity over the plan period totalled 19,270 dwellings (completions, commitments and windfalls), leaving a shortfall of a minimum of 1,715 dwellings to find over the remainder of the planning period – i.e. through to 2026.
  • This was confirmed by Nigel Ashton in an email exchange with NMD.

ashton-07102015

  • Council officers presented this report to the Executive on 20 October 2015 to address the shortfall, and received approval to take forward the other remitted policies on the basis of the 20,985 housing figure.
  • The suggestion is that only policy CS14 (which identifies the distribution of housing throughout the district in terms of towns, service villages and infill villages) needs to be amended.
  • The table below sets out the broad locations for completions, commitments and windfall – and the anticipated distribution for the remaining shortfall of 1,715 dwellings.

CS14-housing-distribution-annotated

  • The detailed figures will vary as sites are identified.

Five-year housing supply

  • While the shortfall does not seem like a high figure, NSC will now need to be mindful of the Government’s requirements to maintain a 5-year supply of deliverable sites (ready for development).

600-homes-shortfall

  • NSC has now been told that it needs to “front load” delivery i.e. bring more sites forward earlier in the process.
  • The Council’s position is that – ideally – it would be desirable “to make good past deficiencies as soon as possible”. This would be in line with the planning guidance on dealing with past ‘under-supply’.
  • The Core Strategy Policies review needs to agree where this is targeted – and the preferred locations for development.
  • Our understanding has always been that the nine Service Villages should only account for 6 per cent of the houses required in North Somerset, but this may come under pressure. (The nine Service Villages are: Backwell, Banwell, Churchill, Congresbury, Easton-in-Gordano/Pill, Long Ashton, Winscombe, Wrington and Yatton)
  • NSC has undertaken a “thorough” site search and published the Site Allocation Plan in early 2016. This identified sites to meet the 2026 housing requirement, and was subject to public consultation.
  • NSC continues to say that addressing the housing requirement “will not require the use of Green Belt”.

What might this mean for Yatton?

  • The Council confirmed to us that Bloor 1 at North End (in construction) and Redrow’s plans for the Oxford Instruments site are both included under the ‘commitments’ column in the table above.
  • In our view, this is more than enough for Yatton – which is less than half the size of Nailsea, and only accounts for 4% of North Somerset’s population.
  • The Council still needs to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of immediately available sites to meet the 5-year supply requirements.
  • Yatton and Claverham remain vulnerable to further development until NSC can demonstrate sufficient permissions and allocations to meet the 5-year land supply.
  • This is likely to be the case for another year or so until the construction rate at Weston Villages picks up pace. At that point ‘normal’ planning rules will apply once more, and NSC will be on more solid ground when it considers pending applications.
  • We are assured that if there are sound planning reasons not to approve applications (i.e. sustainability, landscape, flooding, ecology, etc.) then these will still have as much weight as ever. But…

presumption

The developers are circling.

sites-markers

Sub-Regional planning

  • The housing numbers will need to be reviewed by the end of 2018 and this will take account of a new forecasted growth figure to 2036.
  • WoESomething else to be factored in is the evolving strategic partnership between the four West of England authorities (which make up the ‘old’ county of Avon). They have a duty to collaborate on issues such as delivering the supply of housing and employment land set out in the authorities’ respective Local Plans.
  • Currently in the early stages of development, the eventual Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) will guide future housing, transport and infrastructure development looking forward from 2026 to 2036.
  • While the JSP will bring its pressures, the current focus is on delivering to 2026.

20150606-ann-photo-700


Every care is taken to keep the information on this page accurate and up-to-date. Please notify us if you believe any information to be inaccurate or inappropriate.  

Photo: Ann Hodgson

20 thoughts on “The Big Picture

  • Firstly, I commend those responsible for the website, and in particular Judith, Ann & Co. for bringing this to the forefront of local residents.

    In addition to the mention in the SHLAA, the land referred to as Frost Hill comprises of the existing allotments and the land that is set aside for more allotment space and more importantly, a new burial ground. In the last full Parish Council meeting in March we were informed about NSC’s obligation to consider the land they own for housing. NSC had chosen to defer their decision until June as it was like to be controversial before an election. Of course choosing to develop this piece of land would be even more lucrative to NSC as they would receive the proceeds from the sale of the land, the new homes bonus and the 106 funding.
    I have spoken to Martin O’Neill, Property Estates and Regeneration Manager at NSC, and he has said, ‘that the decision is yet to be made, and that they may decide that Yatton Parish Council’s plan for allotments and a burial ground is the best use for the land’. However, we need to be prepared in the event that their decision goes the other way.

  • As if this village is not bursting at the seams already?
    No shops since 1970
    No schools big enough since 1970
    No bypass to take all the heavy traffic since 1970
    No services at the North End of Yatton at all since 1970
    Doctors Surgery is not adequate for the current population of Yatton never mind the proposed 926 houses.
    Please note these are only a few of the objections I am putting forward.
    To carry on with these proposals is absurd.

  • I don’t want to live in a big town. Yatton cannot cope with this many new houses, people and cars. It would mean a new school for a start and where on earth would they build that? The doctors cannot cope as it is, and the roads are chaos already. WE HAVE TO STOP THIS! It will be the death knell for our lovely little community. I fear that these developers do as much as they can to advance their plans under the radar, thank goodness we seem to have people involved who know where to find the information we need to put up a fight.

  • Good luck with your campaign.

    This was predicted over forty years ago by Councillor Mary Ashbee who warned about the danger of Yatton becoming a dormitory town.

  • As a former Yatton Station Booking Office clerk for First Great Western Trains I cannot see how the planned increase in population can be accomodated on local peak time services, despite developers citing the closeness of a Railway Station as a selling point.
    I retired five years ago and even then trains were often overcrowded, “Full and Standing” in railway parlance, especially when a train is short formed.
    I doubt if the developers will supply extra trainsets or services, and given the current shortage of Rolling Stock and the major point that no new diesel trains are be built due to the difficulty of fitting the neccessary exhaust scrubbers required by Euro 3B emissions rules into our small trains. Train manufacturers have quoted a minimum order of 100 units before designing new suitable trains.
    I cannot see much improvement likely even when the 25-year old trains are cascaded from Thames Valley services after electrification of those lines. Those trains cannot be coupled in multiple with GWT’s current Diesel Multiple Units.
    Longer loco-hauled trains are not the answer for peak time services as there are no coaches suitable for high-density service, also they cost more to run.

  • We must play on the cumulative effect of the flood dangers of all these houses. It is serious – not just Yatton people being ‘not in my backyard’ types.

    I was connected with the then Drainage Board in the 1960’s, and they took the matter very seriously. We are in a flood area – whether the planners agree or not.

    The traffic situation is already at ‘gridlock’ on many occasions. What I heard at the recent meeting from the traffic surveys was best part nonsense in relation to what action we could take. The Stowey Road school parking situation would result in people being booked
    for ‘obstruction’ if this was in Weston or Bristol, and that is NOW. Closing the High St. entry is NO ANSWER.

  • My wife and I own a property in Stowey Road near Hangstones we have become aware of these development proposals. We are currently not living in Stowey Road. Could someone contact us with information about the action group and what has happened so far.

  • Sir

    Have tried to post my comments on the Persimmon planning application off Moor Road Yatton via the North Somerset Website but get an internal Server Error.

    My objections are:
    •Building on the site would lose a great sporting/recreational facilities used by over 500 members of the community, alternative land is not available in the village and the suggestion of converting fields on the other side of the dividing stream towards Nailsea unworkable as that land has been confirmed as flood plain and unsuitable /impossible to drain for such use.
    •The effect of some extra 150 vehicles on Kenn Moor Road to access Yatton and/or cross the moors would exacerbate current traffic problems without a solution-contrary to NSC own planning guidelines of July 2015
    •Combined with submitted/approved plans for Bloor Homes – phase 1 and 2, and Hallam Homes, some 500 homes – traffic congestion would be immense and the current road infrastructure unable to cope with the additional movements.
    •Pedestrian movements into the village of Yatton would be dangerous as there would be no provision for crossing a congested Kenn Moor Road with parked cars due to commuters using this road for parking for the station, and fears for safety not identified. Station parking inadequate for number of commuters which would further worsen if Newland build on the existing car park.
    •There is no provision for increase in local doctors, school and shop facilities all of which are stretched and will not be able to cope with the additional population arriving with the new developments
    •No consideration with the effect such a development would have on the immediate surroundings of grade II listed buildings already imposed upon by Grange Farm Road.

    Please record my objections and confirm done.

    Thank you

    David Pinnock

  • Forgot to add lack of employment opportunities as an objection to Planning applications – point to consider for other objections.

  • Good news I think that TW got refused. The bloor development I think improves NE of the village and it seems prudent to keep the approvals at NE. I think the planners have got this right and I expect the Persimmon will also add to this by approval as close to NE. Yatton can then start to move forward when the developments are complete and invest wisely the S106 contributions. All in all I think these 3 developments will enhance Yatton and I welcome them (but look forward to them being finished!)

  • I have read this Steve (although a little long winded). I just wish we could not put our efforts in to making Yatton as good as it can be. I think all this time has been wasted thus far perhaps fighting the wrong cause without seeing the bigger picture where more good could be unearthed for Yatton. I know you and others have worked tirelessly for years now but it hasn’t really achieved anything and I think all these efforts should now go in a new direction to get some results. I’d love to see some investment in Yatton, improve traffic flow, and I think a small foot bridge by the school will facilitate this as it keeps both pedestrians and traffic moving. The zebra crossings can then go. Simple things but I think this type of campaigning will actually deliver some good for Yatton. I would love to get involved but I work full time and just do not have the time, it’s far better for those who have the time or do not work anymore to take this on but I for one will always support continuous improvement of Yatton. Good luck.

  • I also work full time, John. Sorry you felt my Persimmon objection was “long-winded”. It needed to present detailed evidence that we can use should the Council approve the application, as we are minded to move to a Judicial Review.

    When you say NMD hasn’t really achieved anything, I think you are wrong. So far, only the Bloor 1 development is in construction, and this was before we mobilised. We also want to see Yatton thrive. Personally, I think your idea of a footbridge is a non-starter.

  • Just reading the ‘Councillors have betrayed village’ article in the NST. I do think NMD need to be a little careful with their approach towards the Councillors at NSC. I try and keep up to date with matters and via the Facebook page but it seems support is dwindling a little. I understand the last 2-3 years have probably been frustrating as there hasn’t been many positive outcomes for NMD but just a polite pointer Steve, if you continue to criticise the Councillors & NSC so aggressively we may be hindering ourselves towards them for current/future applications. It could be a good idea for someone else to take the baton forward from here on to perhaps give a fresh approach?? Just a suggestion…

    • Hi John – I’m not sure you are fully aware of our approach towards Councillors and North Somerset Council. I have recently met Cllr Jill Iles on three separate occasions, and we are working together to try and protect the Moor Road site from residential development. I also met the Leader of the Council before Christmas, and have met Dr Liam Fox MP twice and John Penrose MP once. We are collectively ‘holding the baton’ – not just one person. Fresh ideas always welcome… although so far you are the only person to have suggested a “small footbridge” by the school to ease traffic flow.

  • Hi I need to find out where John Marks in this is from as I believe that someone is using my name, and I can you please check as I am getting the blame for this.
    John Marks lived in Yatton since 1983

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *