Timeline

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.

We need funds to pay for agricultural survey updates, consultants fees and solicitors who are helping to highlight how Emily Estate’s plans are damaging the Somerset countryside and our rural communities. We now have a crowdfunding page on JustGiving and we would be very grateful for any help you could give us.

Go Here: https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/saveourfields?utm_term=qp3MYr35R

(if you want to donate less than the JustGiving recommended amount please use the scroll/slider bar)

With thanks to our generous donors, we have commissioned our own professional Agricultural Needs Appraisal which is draft at the moment for the Relocation of Manor Farm. This report explains in detail why the new farm is not needed and is unjustified. Please take the time to read it.

Also, please see a draft Letter from a concerned professional resident that we sent to Emily Estate and our local Councillors.

PLEASE ATTEND IF YOU CAN

Help Protect our Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land from unnecessary development

The Emily Estate has acquired 2500 plus acres locally and over 11 farms including an organic farm it has decommissioned.   It now wishes to build a significant new farm in an unspoilt area of countryside that is grade one soil which is rare in the south west.

Agricultural experts say that both manor farm Yarlington and Castle Farm Castle Cary can still be used and are viable farms.

Natural England Guidelines say that existing buildings should be reused and any development should be in the farm curtilage.  The Emily Estate proposals do neither and threaten to concrete over 22000 m2, running alongside the national Monarchs Way and ruining what is described as a most cherished view.

If you have an opinion on this planning application please go to South Somerset Planning website and use

ref no: 24/01203/FUL

For further information please look at our post “Planning Is In!” which outlines further policy reasons for objecting and is also linked to the planning application

Time is running out we only have three weeks to make an objection.  Hope to see you at the meeting.

The Emily Estate Planning Application for Yarlington Manor Farm has been submitted and we need to oppose it.

Comments and objections must be filed by 21st July 2024.  To do this, please use this link and complete the form.

You should write your own text, but we have laid out some of the key points on how this application contravenes principles of planning policy laid out in the following documents:

South Somerset plan

North Cadbury and Yarlington Neighbourhood plan 

Natural England Guide

1.     The Somerset Plan

Under Policy EP 446 (referring to expansion of existing Businesses in the Countryside), Emily Estate will need to demonstrate that the new farm needs to be situated at Black Eight Acres so that the old farm can be converted into housing.  But:

–              Emily Estate has provided no cogent reason why they cannot re-develop the current farms at Yarlington and Castle Cary

–              The Policy EP446 requires existing buildings to be used where possible.  We believe buildings can be re-used and EE has given no cogent reason why not.

–              Government Planning Policy states that land outside the curtilage of the current farm should only be used where essential to the needs of the business.  If the current farm can be developed, there is clearly no NEED to build a new farm.

–              The Policy states there should be no adverse impact on countryside.  It is unarguable that a large new development at Black Eight Acres (with the potential to spread further) will be a blight on cherished views to and from Yarlington Sleights as well as adversely affecting views from Designated Open Access Areas including Corton Ridge and Cadbury Castle.

–              Any new development should not negatively impact existing wildlife and their habitats.  A new farm would obviously impact on the ancient copse and the hedgerows that line the footpaths bordering the proposed site.

–              In addition to the above, taking this and all the other developments on Emily Estate land, we believe that an Independent Environmental Impact Assessment needs to be conducted on the whole Emily Estate before any planning decision is made.

Policy EP547 covers “Farm diversification”.  Any diversification of Yarlington Manor Farm has to comply with certain criteria.  For example:

·      The scale, type and character of the proposal has to be compatible with its location and landscape setting.

–              Creating a new farm and turning the old farm into a housing development are not compatible with either location or landscape setting.

·      Appropriately located existing buildings should be re-used where possible.

–              Building a new farm without re-using existing agricultural buildings is directly at odds with this requirement.  Current buildings at Yarlington Manor Farm CAN be re-used as part of a modern farm as stated in the Independent Agricultural Report

·      Any new buildings should be in scale with the surroundings and well related to any existing buildings on site.

–              The creation of a new farm is clearly not in scale with the surrounding greenfield and is not well related to any existing buildings because there are none.

2.     North Cadbury & Yarlington Neighbourhood Plan

The planning application is wholly inconsistent with the Neighbourhood Plan because:

–              This is a site for which no development is deemed allowable within the Neighbourhood Plan

–              The proposed development would destroy what is described in the
Plan as a view that is “most cherished and admired”.

3.     Natural England Guide to Assessing Development proposal

The Guide on Agricultural land aims to:

·      Protect the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land from significant, inappropriate or unsustainable development proposals.

·      Protect all soils by managing them in a sustainable way.  BUT:

–              Black 8 Acres is classified as Grade 1 agricultural land (according to the latest UK Government Agricultural Land Classification Maps) and should not be built upon as it is BMV land – a rare commodity across the whole of the Southwest. 

4.     Environmental and agricultural reasons to object

–              The proposed farm is defined as a large farm development at over 22,000m² plus dirty water lagoons.

–              The proposals form part of a wider pattern by Emily Estate of taking farms out of use and building residential properties including holiday lets.

–              The plans, as they stand, would involve poor farming practise bringing all livestock together on one site within a designated high TB area, according to the Independent Agricultural Report.

–              There is a strong case to argue for a professionally Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken covering the whole of the Emily Estate developments.

Please visit the Somerset Planning Website to register your opposition using any or all of the above reasons.  The more people who oppose it, the more likely the council will turn down the application.

Thank you for your support. 

The Planning Application for Yarlington Manor Farm is Imminent!

This week, Yarlington residents received a letter from Paul Rawson advising that Emily Estate will shortly submit a planning application to build a new farm on the Black Eight Acres site.

We are implacably opposed to this.

The new farm would be on a green field site, in the middle of an area designated “a much-cherished view” in our Neighbourhood Plan.  The planned development would destroy this.

Emily Estate has made many planning applications over the years, which have caused varying amounts of controversy, but this is the first to propose a new development on pristine farmland.  Mr Rawson’s reasons for doing it are, at best, disingenuous.

1. He states that Yarlington Manor Farm (YMF) is not fit for purpose and there is no other way to service the milking herd of buffalo.  This is simply not true, for the following reasons:
   1. Independent agricultural experts are of the opinion that YMF is fit for purpose and could easily accommodate the facilities Emily Estate require. 
   2. In addition, Castle Cary Manor Farm could also provide the facilities required, and indeed ought to be required to be used in conjunction with YMF. 
   3. The bridge over the A359 was originally given consent to join different parts of the estate – which would include these two farms.

2. Mr Rawson suggests that the new proposal is required to reduce traffic through Yarlington village, but
   1. The proposed farm is only a few hundred yards from YMF, so traffic can still be diverted from Yarlington if they so wish.

3. Mr Rawson states that the new farm would be far from neighbours and barely visible from the villages but
   1. This ignores the fact that it is a fine piece of unspoilt countryside.
   2. Footpaths and public bridleways run along three sides of the field.  A new farm would destroy the bucolic charm of the countryside walks.

4. Mr Rawson states the farm would include planting that would link up existing hedgerows and pockets of habitat.  Emily Estate’s credentials in preserving habitat are not strong:
   1. They have previously ripped out large parts of hedgerow close to site, along the Monarch’s way, leaving a large open area of grassland where once were hedgerows and trees.
   2. Further stretches of hedgerow have been removed in the construction of their farm tracks.
   3. In other areas, dry stone walls have replaced hedgerows.

1. Mr Rawson refers to the survey of Yarlington residents to support the plan to re-develop YMF into five residential properties, but he omits to mention some crucial findings of the survey which were:
   1. Most respondents preferred the farm to remain on its current site, with the priority being to reduce traffic through the village.
   2. If the farm was moved, the highest concerns were:  further development of the farm; loss of the protected views;  and the environmental impact of the concrete required.

We have consulted widely on these matters and are confident we can make a strong case in opposition to Emily Estate’s proposals and will hope to have the active support of a large section of the community.

Mr Rawson references the use of regenerative farming practices.  It is difficult to see how these proposals support regenerative farming, which ought to be working with the land, restoring it, rather than burying it under thousands of tons of concrete.

Stop The Farm

Black Eight

We read with ironic interest the latest “Community Matters” communications from The Newt in which Ed Workman explains that “as custodians of the land, it is our aim to preserve right of ways and do our best in protecting the vista”.

It would be wonderful if this indicates that The Newt have decided not to build a new Yarlington Manor Farm on prime agricultural land.  But it does not.  On 11^th March we were informed that any changes to plans for the farm would be reported to the community ‘soon’ and we are still waiting. 

Looking at Mr Workman’s words it is worth noting that a vista is defined as “a pleasing view”.  This begs the question, would a view that currently consists of farmland, hedges and woodland, and is described in the Neighbourhood Plan as “much-cherished” remain “pleasing” or “cherished” if a set of concrete barns, grain and machinery stores and milking sheds was placed in it, front and centre.  We think not, but you are all welcome to make up your own minds by taking a look at the following pictures.

This news has the feel of more smoozy Newt PR, punning on the term ‘Community Matters’.  But at least in this, they are correct: our community matters.  But through the destruction of traditional Somerset farmland and countryside, the purchase of ten farms, with the re-purposing of many of the buildings for holiday lets, the communities of this area are being diminished and gutted.

And that really does matter, which is why we will continue to oppose many of The Newt’s proposed changes in our communities.

www.Black8.org.uk

 Vista April 2024                                                Vista after Emily Estate proposed new farm build

Greetings from Black Eight

There has been little news regarding Emily Estate’s proposal to build a new farm at Black Eight Acres and convert Yarlington Manor Farm into residential accommodation for letting, but we continue to closely monitor developments that might affect our local area and community.

• Yarlington Farm

We are continuing to provide information and views to the local planning committee to counter development on Black Eight Acres and to ensure the local community’s voice is heard.  We understand that Emily Estates are continuing their pre-planning consultations regarding the Black Eight Acres site.  We are gathering information and consulting experts to ensure that, should a formal planning application be submitted, then we are able to make a persuasive case against the proposed new farm.

• Lily Farm – Shepton Montague

Emily Estate’s plans to convert this farm into holiday lets and expand the development to include a restaurant were turned down by Shepton Montague Parish Council. 

Emily Estate assured Shepton Montague PC that they would advise the PC of details of any amendments to their application prior to re-submission to Somerset planning.  They did not fulfil this promise.  They have now re-submitted plans with numerous amendments. 

At the latest Shepton Montague PC meeting, there was heated debate over the issue.

Shepton Montague PC have objected to these further amendments, awaiting the outcome of the flooding mitigation report.

Please note that third party representations already submitted on the original application 23/02318/LBC will remain on record.  Nevertheless, as amendments have since been submitted, third parties are invited to submit further individual representations regarding the amendments.  No further comment results in assumed acceptance of the amendments.

•  Community Liaison Officer and Village Steward

Emily Estate has now appointed to the above positions, and we remain hopeful that the Liaison Officer Zoe Young will be able to work with surrounding villages to ensure that Emily Estate’s development does not threaten to harm our rural communities or cherished environment.

Zoe’s role is to work alongside the community and to address any issues or concerns that may arise relating to the Emily Estate.  She can be contacted via email at zoe.young@thenewtinsomerset.com and will attend parish council meetings.

The village Steward is Robert Askew who will be walking the footpaths across the Estate looking for issues and will take on maintenance.  He can be made aware of concerns locals may have via Zoe at the email address above.

•  Road closures for Bridge A359

Dependent on weather conditions, Galhampton Hill will be close on Friday March 15^th from 9am – 8pm to allow installation of the bridge over the A359 by Emily Estate to allow access for them from Avalon Farm to Manor Farm, Castle Cary (also known as Castle Farm).

This bridge is an example of how Emily Estate were able to get planning permission through quickly with little opposition.  Although the bridge will be situated in the parish of Pitcombe, the visual impact will be on residents of North Cadbury and Castle Cary Parishes, the councils of which were not included in the planning process.

It should be noted that since Black8 began its campaign, we are seeing far more co-operation and sharing of information and concerns between the parishes of North Cadbury, Pitcombe, Shepton Montague and Caste Cary which is fantastic and necessary when the Emily Estate straddles all of these parishes and the impact it is having on the local communities is mutual.

When the bridge is installed, it may provide an example of Emily Estate’s idea of necessary and sympathetic development in rural Somerset.  The pre-application plans for the green-field site at Black Eight Acres is worth a second look.

• Yellow brick roads

Emily Estate continues its quest to build roads in its House Style, akin to The Wizard of Oz.  We will leave it to you to decide who can be playing any of the Wicked Witches, lions, tin men or scare crows.  Anyone with a brain?  A heart?  Courage?

We attach a picture of the road construction along Lodge Hill for illustration.

• A review

We were amused to read the review of The Newt by Tanya Gold, the restaurant critic of The Spectator 24^th February 2024.  Please see a link to the article below, which can be read in full if you sign up (one month free, then cancel for no cost), or find someone who subscribes.  The article is titled “You can stare at a cow you will soon eat:  The Newt, Hadspen, Reviewed.”

It seems not everyone is taken in by the Newt’s impressive PR machine.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/you-can-stare-at-a-cow-you-will-soon-eat-the-newt-hadspen-reviewed/

• “The bench”

For anyone who has had the privilege to walk down the ancient avenue starting across the A371 from Hadspen House, they will understand the sentiment of one of the recent posts from the Newt:

The view from the bench is indeed beautiful, on occasion, stunning.

Imagine it with a new, extraordinary, modern, farm interrupting the bucolic serenity….

I doubt anyone would enjoy tasting their “cyder” at their private picnic then?