SAVE WOOLLEY VALLEY

Policy and the Council

Planning Policy Contradictions

The confusion and uproar has occurred because residents have seen BANES following planning policies that don't appear to be applied in this case. I will quote the following excerpts that don't appear to apply:

POLICY GB.1 – “Within the Green Belt, as shown on the Proposals Map, permission will not be given, except in very special circumstances...”

POLICY NE.1- “Development which does not either conserve or enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the landscape will not be permitted.”

POLICY BH.1 – “Development which would harm the qualities which justified the inscription of Bath as a World Heritage Site or which would harm the setting of the World Heritage Site will not be permitted.”

POLICY NE.2 – “Development which adversely affects the natural beauty of the landscape of the designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will not be permitted.”

POLICY NE.14 – “Development will not be permitted where:

it is subject to flooding, causes flooding elsewhere or where it would impede the flow of floodwater unless the flood hazard can be mitigated...”

POLICY BH.8 – “Within Conservation Areas development of new or replacement walls, fences and railings and paved areas or other surface treatment will be permitted where:

i) they do not damage the character or appearance of the area; and

ii) existing materials are retained or reused where this would enhance to the character or appearance of the area.”

POLICY BH.22 – “Proposals for the external lighting of facilities will only be permitted where:

they would not give rise to an unacceptable level of illumination into the sky, open countryside or in villages where present levels of illumination are low...”

"The Swainswick Valley is deemed to be of such special importance that an Article 4 Direction was made by the Secretary of State in 1992 removing permitted development rights. Under Article 4, planning permission is required for (a) works for the erection, extension or alteration of a building or (b) any excavation or engineering operations. No such planning permission has been given and the 5th such planning application was refused by B&NES on 31 Mar 10. Despite this, large scale engineering work, including excavation and erection of buildings, continues unabated and irreparable harm is being done to the visual impact and natural beauty of this special area of the Cotswolds AONB."

enforcement,
“The Council's planning enforcement team will therefore only investigate those matters that constitute a breach of planning control within the terms of the Town Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended) and the High Hedges Regulations.

This will consist of

Unauthorised buildings, uses, works to listed buildings, advertisements;
non compliance with permissions, conditions and Planning Agreements; and
unauthorised works to protected trees and hedgerows”.

Comments from council parties and responses submitted in a letter to the case officer

"they are a national company, we can't afford to fight them" - they may have more than one site/ operation, they are not Shell or BP! You have a statutory duty to stop them and repair the environmental damage they have caused even if they were a huge multinational.

" the chicken sheds are movable so they are legal and do not need planning permission" - I am reliably informed that the relevant Planning Officer, Neil Harvey, has inspected the sheds last week and reported that "they are not moveable and are sunk 2 feet into the ground". If so why have they not been stopped in their tracks and prevented from building more of the 10 we are told that are planned? Has anybody considered the health, smell, wastage disposal, Highways implications. Woolley Lane cannot sustain any additional traffic never mind that associated with a large-scale farming enterprise. Surely based on their track record you should lock down the site until they comply with planning law? Woolley Lane, a single track road with passing places that must be navigated with caution at the best of times, is caked with mud and unsafe as a result of their coming and goings with heavy vehicles. They are using the Highway to cross their land rather than use their own farm tracks.

"we can't do anything because they might appeal the latest refusal" Have your lawyers engaged Counsel to make sure a way is found to stop them NOW, immediately? They have followed their previous approach and not applied for planning permission in advance for these large chickens barns. Have your team told them that permission is not needed? These sheds are not "chattels", a designation used elsewhere to circumvent planning law.Why do you and your colleagues allow them to continue with this practice of flouting due process?

Terms and Conditions: The content on this website -- including the contents of specific postings -- is provided by and is the responsibility of the individual persons or people who made such postings. We do not monitor the content of www.savewoolleyvalley.co.uk and we take no responsibility for such content.
By its very nature as a conduit for public comment on the development of Woolley Valley the website may carry offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate material, or in some cases, postings that have been mislabelled or are otherwise deceptive. We expect that you will use caution and common sense and exercise proper judgement when using this website. We hereby take no responsibility for third-party content provided on this site, including all comments provided by third party contributors (including, without limitation, any viruses or other disabling features), nor do we have any obligation to monitor such third party content. We reserve the right at all times to remove or refuse to distribute any content to the website.