Author name: black8

Here are some more documents that may help when you are formulating your objections:

1. A document listing potential objection points to the planning application.
2. A 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.
3. A letter from Reading Agriculture Consultants responding to Rural Solutions’ redacted rebuttal letter. They raise more issues with the Buffalo herd and also the application of Policy EP4 Rural Economy.
4. Speech notes from the CPRE for the Parish Council meeting on 15th January.

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:

1. 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.” 
  1. 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.”
  1. The amendments provide no comparisons between gains and losses. They are very misleading providing only single points not walks.
  2. 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.”
  1. 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.”
  1. 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.”
  1. 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.”

1. 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.” 

1. 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.” 

1. 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.”

1. 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.”

1. The different cattle herds could be at separate locations, which will most likely be more beneficial for animal health.
2. Existing farmyards could be redeveloped with modern farm buildings, where necessary.
3. The proposed new design, on this scale, requires a detailed financial business case with the application. 
4. Further planning applications for on-site rural workers’ dwellings would likely be forthcoming.
5. Building on Grade 1 land is not essential as there are alternative agricultural solutions.

8. “The farm is needed on this site.”

1. 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.

www.Black8.org.uk

A modest extension beyond  9th January 2025 has been requested by Black Eight to Somerset Council for comments or objections to be submitted to the Somerset planning portal for the Yarlington Manor Farm application 24/01203/FUL. This follows the amendments submitted by Emily Estate on the 18th December. Black Eight are currently working through this long list of amendments and will send their thoughts and comments out as soon as possible. Of course objections can be submitted by yourselves any time from now.

The deadline for responses and comments to the revised planning application is unreasonable so Debra Fox has written a letter on behalf of Black Eight to the Planners requesting an extension (thank you Debra and Adam).

Emily Estate have submitted a revised planning application and whilst we will try to get an extension, at the moment we have less than 3 weeks to submit comments (by 9^th January). 

There is a lot to it but read what you can and the the summary is “Supporting Information Amended – Cover Letter_Redacted”. We will be sending out more information very soon.

Thanks and have a very Happy Christmas!

Welcome to the Black Eight Newsletter

1. Yarlington Manor Farm Planning Application – decision delayed again

Following communications with the chief Planning Officer, Simon Fox, it seems that any decision on the application will not be taken until early 2025, with the likely date the end of February.  It is possible there will be more submissions, which will need to be consulted on, hence the further delay.

We will continue to monitor the planning website and have made more submissions ourselves, which we detail below. 

2. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)

As part of the application, Emily Estate has submitted an LVIA.  We commissioned a review of this LVIA by The Landscape Partnership which highlights numerous errors and omissions in their methodology and the contents of their Assessment which weakens the planning application even further.  

We have submitted our LVIA Review to the planners, but you can read it here. 

3. Lily Farm Planning Application

There was widespread dismay that the Lily Farm development in Shepton Montague has been approved, despite assurances that no decision would be made until the Section 19 Flood Prevention Report had been completed.  The development – which converts the former organic farm into holiday lets and a restaurant (for the exclusive use of guests) is symptomatic of what we are opposing:  the wilful destruction of farms and communities in the area by The Newt, which is oblivious to the concerns of local residents.

4. Bad Press for The Newt

The Newt is finding its way into the national press for all the wrong reasons, with The Mail, The Times and The Daily Telegraph reporting on the growing discontent in Castle Cary.  The Times gave a scathing review of the The Creamery at Cary Station, while the Mail and Telegraph have picked up on the rising indignation in Castle Cary over The Newt’s acquisition of The George Hotel and several other prime commercial premises.

5. Land Alive Conference

We were surprised to note that The Newt was not present to contribute to the conversations at the Land Alive conference at the Bath and West showground this weekend; a conference which sought to “make the case for a more localised, regenerative farming and food system”. 

It is strange the Newt was not a part of the discussions, which were aimed at developing farming to “boost local economies, make healthy food accessible, and build resilience into our food system”.  Even more surprising, as, in their Community Matters newsletter on 12^th November, they had been excited to tell us that their farm manager, Cameron Knee, would be there to help play his part.

Although the omission seems curious, the point could be made that The Newt’s plan to pour concrete on their best and most valuable land to build a needless new farm, would suggest they are not really committed to improving the environment. 

On the conference website it says, “Living Soils Hold The Key”.  Not much chance of that if they are buried under 22,000 M² of concrete!

---

From all of us at Black Eight, thank you for all your support in 2024, we hope you all have a great Christmas and we look forward to a positive outcome in 2025.

We were surprised to note that The Newt was not present to contribute to the conversations at the Land Alive conference at the Bath and West showground this weekend, 22nd & 23rd November; a conference which sought to “make the case for a more localised, regenerative farming and food system”.

It is strange the Newt was not a part of the discussions, which were aimed at developing farming to “boost local economies, make healthy food accessible, and build resilience into our food system”. Even more surprising, as, in their Community Matters newsletter on 12th November, they had been excited to tell us that their farm manager, Cameron Knee, would be there to help play his part.

Although the omission seems curious, the point could be made that The Newt’s plan to pour concrete on their best and most valuable land to build a needless new farm, would suggest they are not really committed to improving the environment.

On the conference website it says, “Living Soils Hold The Key”. Not much chance of that if they are buried under 22,000 M² of concrete.

Have a read (click on image) …

Welcome to the Black Eight Newsletter

1. Planning Decision postponed from 24^th September to 29^th November

The planning authority has agreed to extend the time required for the determination of the planning application, until 29^th November.  This was requested by Emily Estate who “are considering the responses of consultees in relation to this planning application, with a view to making some amendments in due course”

Their email was sent shortly after the Black 8 files explaining our opposition to the plans is published on the Somerset Planning website on 11^th September. 

So, perhaps, at the very least, Emily Estate have realised that the opposition to this not only numerous and vociferous, but well-informed and knowledgeable, too.  

2. More opposing voices needed

With the deadline extended, we have the chance to register more objections on the planning portal.  While many excellent points have been raised there are still some that need to be made clear to the planners.  These are:

• Financial Viability
  • Emily Estate is required in planning regulation to provide an outline of the financial viability of the farm and how it fits into its agricultural business model in order to justify a large new farm outside of its current facilities.  It has not done this and this needs to be highlighted.
• No extra employment created
  • Any argument by Emily Estate that this farm is going to provide extra employment needs to be refuted.  It will not.
• Hedgerows and visual impact
  • There is a contradiction in their proposals that a new farm will maintain hedgerows in line with normal farming practice, but in other documents they say that hedgerows will be allowed to grow (along The Monarch’s Way, for example) in order to reduce the visibility of the farm buildings.  They cannot have it both ways. Of note is that the latter will also significantly reduce visibility of the cherished views of the Yarlington Sleights from the adjacent historic footpaths.

If you have already registered your opposition on the Somerset Planning Website, please encourage family members and friends in the area to put their opposition in too.  We need to keep this a ‘live’ debate and something Somerset Planners (and Emily Estate) know will not just quietly fade away.

3. CPRE (Somerset) Report

The CPRE (Council for the Preservation of Rural England) have published a letter detailing their objections to the planning.  Much of it is based on the Agricultural Report.  In addition, it highlights the contradictions in Emily Estate’s reasoning of what constitutes a rural landscape and setting.  It is a reminder of what we are fighting for in this case regarding Emily Estate’s plans for farms in the area.  You can go to the planning website to view it here.

4. LVIA reports – analysis

For our part, we have been consulting with experts regarding the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) that Emily Estate have used to support the proposal.  After reading the reports and making a site visit our experts have identified several areas in which Emily Estate’s LVIA lacks thoroughness or credibility.  We intend bringing these points forward in due course.

5. Monarch’s Way Association

We recently met with John Tennant, the chairman of the Monarch’s Way Association.  We walked with him along the Hick’s Lane stretch of the Monarch’s Way and around the Black Eight site (along the public footpaths).  He expressed alarm at the proposals which would, in his opinion, be severely detrimental to the views from this ancient historic path.

6. Fundraising

With the continued commissioning of expert reports, we still need funds.  All donations gratefully received, for the good of the community.  Please go to the website for details.

From all of us at Black Eight

www.Black8.Org.uk

Flooding is great concern for this planning application. Two comments already posted on the Somerset Planning website may be of interest …

---

The objection to this planning application concentrates on aspects of the increased flood risk that the 4.96ha proposed development site presents and references the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) document produced by Simon Bastone Associates for their client Emily Estates.

Section 10 of the Bastone FRA document, Design For Exceedance, states that the surface water storage capacity has been designed to cope with a 1/100 year rainfall event of 6 hours duration, ie circa 1512m3 of storage capacity (10.2.5). Using the data and calculations in Appendix 1 of the FRA document it can be demonstrated that during the actual rainfall event of May 9th 2023 of 100mm of rainfall in one hour (figures from the LLFA preliminary report on the Yarlington Flood) over the site and surrounding hills, both the capacity of the planned surface water storage onsite and the flow rate of the planned outlet pipe would have been completely overwhelmed.

If the proposed site had existed on May 9th 2023 the surface water runoff from the developed site alone during the hour of intense rainfall would have been 2684m3. Runoff at a maximum allowable greenfield rate of 28l/s down the outflow pipe would still have left 2440m3 of surface water needing to find its level down at the river Cam in Yarlington, way above the site’s planned circa 1512m3 of storage capacity.

The Bastone FRA document contends that the entire development site is in a Flood Zone 1 area so does not need to take into account surface water issues beyond the development site. Consequently their FRA analysis does not include the extra water runoff from the surrounding hills that would flow down to the River Cam because 5ha of grade 1 agricultural land soakaway at the base of Yarlington Sleights will be replaced by 5ha of impermeable concrete and semipermeable surfaces.

According to the table in appendix L of the FRA document existing surface water runoff a 1/100 year 6 hour rainfall event would produce a peak flow rate of 629l/s of surface water coming off the hills, the tolerance level used to design the site with rainfall intensity of 13mm/hr. But we know that on May 9th last year the peak flow rate off the Yarlington Sleights hillside was multiples of this number, with rainfall intensity of 100mm/hr over 33ha, ie a peak flow rate of 4,691l/s.

Section 11 of the Bastone FRA document discusses Residual Risks. 11.1.4 mentions overtopping and geotechnical failure ‘Following very large surface water exceedance events’. Based on the above observations I would argue that the 1/100 year rainfall event already happened in 2023, and the subsequent flooding in Yarlington and downstream along the River Cam would have been even more serious if the site had existed in its proposed form on that date given the above factors. Similar 1/100 year rainfall events happened in the nearby villages three more times last winter as will shortly be detailed in the expected LLFA Section 19 Report.

The strong objection to this planning application based on the the above flood risk factors, and failure to apply a Sequential Test to the proposal, which would clearly demonstrate the existence of more suitable sites for the development in terms of FRA on existing brownfield sites in the Emily Estate’s land portfolio.

---

This strong objection to this planning application concentrates on the elevated flood risk that the proposed 4.96ha development site presents and references the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) document produced by Simon Bastone Associates for their client Emily Estates.

The Bastone FRA document starts by stating that the entire development site is located in a Flood Zone 1 area which means that the Flood Risk Assessment is confined to the development site only and does not need to consider the surrounding areas (section 3.3.3). It also states that the application does not need Sequential and Exception Tests (section 7.1.1) as the site is entirely on Flood Zone 1 land. The flood assessment calculations in the document are based on advice received from the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) in letters exchanged in late 2022, and at no point in the available exchange is the scale of the development mentioned.

The FRA document states that all surface water produced on the site will be drained away after various measures off the SE end of the site into the River Cam in Yarlington via a 480m drainage pipe. This pipe outlet is actually in a Flood Zone 3 area that was subject to a catastrophic flood on May 9th 2023. Yarlington, Galhampton, North Cadbury and Queen Camel on the river Cam were all flooded, 166 houses were involved in total on that day and we are currently awaiting the final Section 19 Report from the LLFA on the flood event.

Guidance from the Environment Agency to LPAs published on 15th April 2015 states that:

‘A Sequential Test is required for major development if any proposed building, access and escape route, land-raising or other vulnerable element will be in flood zone 2 or 3, or in flood zone 1 and your SFRA shows it will be at increased risk of flooding during its lifetime.‘

It is surprising that the proposed drainage pipe outlet into the River Cam was not considered part of the planning application’s site given that it is located in Flood Zone 3, and hence should have triggered a Sequential Test for the application.

On the matter of the expected LLFA Section 19 Report See guidance on FRA for planning applications from www.gov.uk, in particular Paragraph: 027 (Reference ID: 7-027-20220825) and I quote:

‘The Sequential Test should be applied to ‘Major’ and ‘Non-major development’ proposed in areas at risk of flooding, but it will not be required where: The site is in an area at low risk from all sources of flooding, unless the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, or other information, indicates there may be a risk of flooding in the future.‘

The expected LLFA Section 19 Report constitutes material other information.

In addition the Town and Country Planning Procedure (2015) Schedule 4 paras zc states that if a proposed development is in Flood Zone 2 or 3, or Flood Zone 1 with critical drainage issues it should be referred to the Environment Agency. Has this taken place?

So on all the above criteria a Sequential Test should have been undertaken for the application. Applied to this proposed development site the Sequential Test would demonstrate that there are other sites far more suitable for the planned development in the Emily Estate’s existing Farm portfolio in terms of FRA.

Given the May 9th 2023 flood event in Yarlington and the downstream villages on the River Cam and the subsequent ongoing flood consultation and expected Section 19 Report, it feels irresponsible to say the least for the LPA to consider a major non residential development above Yarlington and the River Cam catchment area without applying Sequential Testing, and without taking into account the flood management issues it triggers beyond the boundaries of the proposed development site.