We know we’ve been quiet but we we were waiting for the Parish Council Planning meeting this week (more to follow on that …) but right now we need your help!
Following our request to Somerset Council for an extension, the new deadline is midnight Wednesday 22nd January! We know this is only 3 days away but even if you objected to the original application, you still need to do it again with the amendments now on the planning portal. We need to make sure that Somerset Council is aware of the procedural impropriety and of the scale of objections to this application so that it goes to a committee decision.
We have studied the amendments submitted by Emily Estate and we believe they change nothing about this application which should be opposed. For your information, below we outline Emily Estate’s main points and our counter arguments.
In addition, we recommend you read the letter from Brian Goodenough who has previously managed the same buffalo herd which Emily Estate has now bought. He has identified numerous problems with Emily Estate’s Agricultural plans with regard to the Buffalo herd which support the arguments in Point (7) below.
Here we go:
- Landscape
- “The overall character of the area, as a valued landscape, will be protected and the proposals demonstrably accord with the relevant policies of the North Cadbury & Yarlington Neighbourhood Plan.”
- The application does not demonstrably accord with Neighbourhood Plan. The application still:
- Does not comply with Neighbourhood Plan policy 5, (It does not enhance local character)
- Does not comply with Neighbourhood Plan Policy 6 (It doesn’t preserve or enhance publicly accessible views,
- It does not comply with Policy 7, in failing to support wildlife movement.
- Destroys the countryside
- Does not comply with planning regulations EP4, EP5, EP7, EQ7 And NCYNP
- “Local views from public rights of way will be reduced in some areas, whilst the building removals and landscape restoration at the existing farm site will increase the availability of views to Yarlington Sleights.”
- The amendments provide no comparisons between gains and losses. They are very misleading providing only single points not walks.
- The removal of the barns does not enhance views from the village (the farm is barely visible) and the footpath through the farm is to be through the very original lower lane and there will be no views of the sleights gained along that stretch.
2. Access and Public Rights of Way
- “Introduction of gentle landform and additional tree / woodland planting to the west of the proposed replacement farmyard, to provide additional visual mitigation in local views from Hicks Lane.”
- In trying to hide the farm, hundreds of metres of views will be lost.
- “Omission of previously proposed (offsite) hedgerow along Hicks Lane, to retain views north / north-eastwards towards Yarlington Sleights.”
- This also involves ruining views of a national recreational walking route of. The hedge is to be up to 6 metres high and will create a boxed in pathway reducing views along nearly 1km of pathway.
- “Key views from public rights of way will be preserved and enhanced.”
- Key views are neither enhanced nor preserved, as indicated above. The view along the path from Hicks Lane to Yarlington will be lost. The one view the applicant has shown is a single viewpoint and not on a footpath.
3. “Through further discussion with Officers it is now considered that agricultural development proposals fall outside of the scope of Policy EP4.”
- There is no confirmation of this and is strongly debated. EP4 was used in the case of Lily Farm which EE (UK) still contends is used as a farm and therefore must still apply.
4. “The proposed farm will house lighting 16/24hrs with special lights.”
- The area will suffer from light and noise pollution. It is a dark skies area and should not be allowed. Avalon Farm has already demonstrated that it cannot keep lights off in accordance to comply with regulations. It will be a busy site with up to 100 vehicles a day, breaking promises made for the original Avalon Farm application.
5. “Reduction in height of the two main proposed replacement farm buildings…to reduce visual effects…the minimum possible to allow for access and tipping / loading by the applicable farm machinery.”
- The buildings will be 11m high: the equivalent of 3 stories. They are out of place and unnecessary in this location.
6. “There is no need for an Environmental Impact Assessment.”
- We believe there is a legal requirement, but it is a point that can only be decided by Somerset County planning committee.
7. “Viability of Proposed Business and Need for the Replacement Farm.”
- The different cattle herds could be at separate locations, which will most likely be more beneficial for animal health.
- Existing farmyards could be redeveloped with modern farm buildings, where necessary.
- The proposed new design, on this scale, requires a detailed financial business case with the application.
- Further planning applications for on-site rural workers’ dwellings would likely be forthcoming.
- Building on Grade 1 land is not essential as there are alternative agricultural solutions.
8. “The farm is needed on this site.”
- At the original site meeting, Mr Paul Rawson (EE director) admitted Emily Estate do not “need” it on this site. He stated they “want” it.
Please lodge your objection here before midnight on Wednesday 22nd January and we are as ever, grateful for your support.
From all of us at Black Eight.
