The Story so far

and type

“10/04188/FUL” into the top box then press “search” at the bottom of their page. (This should work)

Click on “submit comments” at the top of the pages to register your opinion.

Possible objections you could use:

1.       The stock pond has not always been there. It replaces a small water trough probably the size of a bath

2.       The need for a stock pond has not been demonstrated.

3.       There is no practical requirement for such a pond.

4.       The pond currently exists as an unauthorised development in breach of stop and enforcement notices, and in breach of an Article 4 Direction.

5.       The creation of the pond has already harmed the ecology of the valley and its continued existence will exacerbate this harm.

6.       The pond is not a natural feature in the land.

7.       The application states that the site cannot be seen from public road/footpath. It can be clearly seen from an adjacent public footpath (running from Charlcombe Grove Farm down to Woolley).

8.       Development of the Stock Pond neither conserves nor enhances the character, amenity or wildlife value of local watercourses and their corridors.

9.       A stock pond of this nature is unsuitable for alpacas - bad for fleece of alpacas, not to mention the spread of disease including bovine TB as the pond would be shared with wild life including badgers,

10.   Stock ponds can also assist the spread of diseases such as Johne’s disease and bovine TB, both of which can be carried by camelids, since wild animals such as badgers are likely to drink from them.

11.   The agent, Willis has admitted that this is a "farming-led property development scheme", ie. in effect a scam, in that it is admittedly trying to exploit planning law loopholes based on giving favourable treatment to agriculture, for a property development scheme by the backdoor. GVP are not serious farmers.

12.   When looking at the whole development, it looks like the Council has sided with the developer by choosing not to regulate what is in reality a very significant development.

13.   Development (the stock pond and the whole development) is in:

a.     A major part of the gateway to our World Heritage City

b.    Part of the Cotswolds National  Park

c.     An AONB

d.    An area deemed so sensitive as to have had an Article 4 designation applied to it; the only one on farmland in BANES.

e.     A Site of Nature Conservation Interest (Policy NE9 as per BANES Local Plan, Oct. 2007). It is also part of a Strategic Nature Area.

14.  Five retrospective Planning Applications have so far been refused for various reasons including the fact that the area which is accessed by single-track lanes and is close to three schools cannot safely accommodate any increase in traffic never mind the sort that will arise if intensive farming is allowed in this traditional livestock grazing environment.

15.    Stop and Enforcement Notices that were eventually initiated after a public outcry in the media have been flaunted and ignored by the Developer. The Planning Department appear/seem to have ignored photographic evidence of transgressions of the Notices by the Developer provided by local residents and the Parish Council as either not real or not relevant.

16.   This stock pond cannot feed any troughs as it is at a lower point than the other fields

17.   The volume of the stock pond is several 100 cubic meters, which means this is the equivalent of a few hundred tons of water when full. In an area which is known to be prone to subsidence the impact on the stability of the landmass is unknown, 

18.  It is unclear how the stock ponds will alter drainage, both above and through the soil. The relaying and alteration by GVP of the brook running down from Sopers Wood amplifies these uncertainties.

19.  The company (GVP) keeps ignoring planning regulations, issues of safety,
aspects and impact on the landscape, flora/fauna and local residents.

20.   In the light of the behaviour of the land owner so far, this application should be considered as part of a whole plan for the land and not as a piecemeal application.

UPDATE 25/10/10

There has been an increase in activity at The Meadows, with the moving of some chicken sheds alongside Woolley Lane and preparation of electric fencing around the site. However the insides of the sheds are still not fitted and thus not ready for chickens.

A new planning application has been submitted on the site, for the Northern end where the previous excavation has taken place. The application is a retrospective application for a stock pond which is already on site. If you would like to view or comment on this please use the following link.

http://idox.bathnes.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appNumber=10/04188/FUL

We will shortly be uploading some of our suggested comments in objection to the application.

There is an oral hearing which will take place mid November which we hope will grant us the Judicial Review.


UPDATE 28/09/10

There has been limited activity at The Meadows recently, and we are still awaiting information from the council with regards to their visit a few months ago.

UPDATE 9/09/10

Work continues at The Meadows, although there is little new information to report.

We have not yet received any information from the council regarding the outcome of the visit from enforcement or other issues such as the mobile home which we were previously told would be dealt with.

We are still awaiting the outcome of the Judicial Review process and whether we have permission to proceed with the case.

UPDATE 15/08/10

Work is still ongoing at the meadows. There have been vast amounts of work carried out with the arrival of another chicken shed.

We know there was a visit this week from enforcement but do not know the outcome of this. GVP were very busy working before the visit.

- What looks like a new track/trench is being created in the middle of the site contrary to the stop notice - so far it is around 150 yards long. The Stop Notice issued on 21st May explicitly states that activites forbid " the excavation of soil and surface materials from the land including the digging of pits and trenches and altering of the levels of the land.

- Further filling in of streams has been noted in the Northern part of the site (where the crayfish previously were). We are worried about what impact this is having on the environment and also the problems that this will cause with regards to flooding on the lane and neighbouring land.

- We are still awaiting news from the judicial review process.

UPDATE 30/07/10

More work has been carried out this week, with diggers returning on site. Trenches for the water pipe lines have been filled across the site and further work seems to continue on the Northern end of the site.

There has still been no indication that a second enforcement notice is being issued with regards to the mobile home or other works, even though BANES had said that this would be happening.

The papers for the Judicial Review process have been issued by the lawyers and we await news from the courts.


UPDATE 20/07/10

Work continues on site. Although we now expected the land in the North parcel of the site to be returned to previous levels we are not convinced that this is taking place.

The lorry loads of topsoil which were brought in on to the site have not been removed and now are meerly being 'spread' across the land and are being used to fill in and over streams and watercourses.

The stock pond is also being dug out to a greater depth. There is no permission for the stock pond in the first place, let alone excavating it deeper.