SAVE WOOLLEY VALLEY ACTION GROUP
The first case involves SWVAG's claim that BANES' position that ten chicken sheds, each designed to house 1,000 chickens, does not fall under European Environmental protection directives is unlawful. The second case involves SWVAG's belief that the only Planning Application (one of 8, that GVP have submitted, all retrospectively) so far approved by BANES for a stock pond has been approved unlawfully. The Council has now received another planning application from Golden Valley Paddock for Meadow Farm, Woolley Lane Three-pronged: · Mobile home · Alterations to access · Retention of farm track 11/00854/FUL PARCEL 2866 WOOLLEY LANE CHARLCOMBE SITING OF A TEMPORARY TIMBER-CLAD MOBILE HOME FOR AN AGRICULTURAL WORKER AND ALTERATION TO ACCESS (REVISED PROPOSAL) You can see this at Click “SUBMIT COMMENTS” to register your objection Reasons to object are too many to mention. I suggest that you should use your own words where possible. Below is an extensive list of objections. By no means complete but a good starting point. Please do not just copy and paste them all but use the items that make most sense to you! This is THE application that must be stopped. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR OBJECTIONS. EVERY OBJECTION IS COUNTED. THEY CAN NOT BE IGNORED. WRITE TO THE PAPER. SPREAD THE WORD, NOW. BEFORE WE LOSE OUR VALLEY. Failure to object is one more vote for the developers! REASONS TO OBJECT Mobile Home This application is the fourth to be submitted for a temporary mobile home to house an agricultural worker on the site. Each of the previous three has been refused and it is noted that this latest application is identical to the previous three · No appeal made by the applicant against any of the refusals · Permitted development rights have been removed under an Article 4 Direction made in March 1992, as referenced in the B&NES Local Plan C2.16. · Necessary to house an on-site worker to attend alpacas and ducks?? Continual supervision of alpaca stock, as claimed to be necessary in this application, is unrealistic. · PPS7 (Annex A para13) states that temporary permission should not be granted for the siting of a mobile home in a location where permission for a permanent dwelling would not be given. There can be no question of permission for a permanent dwelling being granted in this sensitive location, as evidenced by: (1) the refusal of previous planning applications; (2) the earlier enforced demolition and removal of an unauthorised building in Swainswick Valley associated with a deer farm; (3) the Planning Authority’s statement in the refusal of 09/04403/FUL that this is “an inappropriate location for a permanent dwelling”. · The siting of the mobile home in this location would detract from the appearance and openness of the Green Belt and from the natural beauty and rural character of this very special part of the Cotswold AONB, contrary to policies GB.2 and NE.2 of the Local Plan. Alterations to Access. This configuration was the subject of three earlier applications (08/02397/FUL, 09/01020/FUL, 09/04403/FUL), all of which were refused and none appealed against. The security argument is used to justify the unauthorised site access gates. The reasons put forward by the Planning Authority for the refusal of the previous three applications remain relevant: · The surfaced area between the new gates and the highway is formed at a gradient which is steeper than the acceptable maximum of 1 in 15, presenting a road traffic hazard to the users of Woolley Lane, contrary to policy T.24. · The drainage of the apron is inadequate, with water from the apron draining onto the highway. · The vehicle access does not provide a safe means of access to the site, contrary to Policy T.24 of the Local Plan. · The gates and fencing are of an inappropriate design for this rural location, detract from the character of this part of Woolley Lane, and represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to policies GB.2 and NE.2 of the Local Plan. Retention of Farm Track Since the ‘farm track’ is not defined in the application and no case is made for retention, this does not constitute a valid application and no permission for ‘retention of farm track’ can possibly be given. The Three Parts Of The Application There are compelling arguments for the refusal of each of the three works applied for under this application. Refusal of any one of the three elements of the application must result in refusal of all three. ALSO Harmful Visual Impact Within the Green Belt and the Cotswold AONB and has been deemed of such importance that it has been made the subject of an Article 4 Direction.... This contravenes policies NE.1, NE.2 and GB.2 of the Local Plan. Article 4 Direction The Article 4 Direction cannot be disregarded and provides clear evidence of the sensitive nature of this location. Agricultural Justification The proposal is a new commercial venture of breeding alpacas and does not relate to the existing agricultural practices and uses of the Swainswick Valley. Planning Policy Guidance 2 states that “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” The agricultural appraisal indicates that the herd size will grow within 3 years to 85 females and 5 stud males making it one of the largest herds in the country (in the top 2% by herd size, para 5,2). This suggests a large scale enterprise which, whilst sustainable on a 50 acre site, will not be appropriate in this particular location which is poorly served by narrow rural lanes and is covered by the constraints of Article 4 removing permitted development rights. Requirements of PPS7 PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) The agricultural appraisal states that it will be essential for the managers to be on site to facilitate essential stock maintenance, attend to welfare needs and deter intrusion. 24 hours a day? Traffic Concerns The chosen location in Woolley Lane is considered to be totally inappropriate... Noise The use of quad bikes and 4x4 vehicles on site to support the alpaca enterprise will generate significant noise in this sensitive location... Update: Feb 2011 “Council planners served a stop notice on the firm in May demanding that a 200 square yard pond created earlier in the year be removed. This has no real impact on our mission. The Judicial Review process continues apace and we are waiting for the date. Meanwhile our lawyer is working on the next steps.
Update: August 2011
The date has now been set for the Judicial review. It will take place in the second week of December 2011.
We hope the planning applications which have not yet been determined will be going to committee on towards the end of September or the end of October.
Update: July 2011
We are still awaiting the result of the most recent planning applications for silo's, the track and the mobile home.
The good news however is regarding the judicial review. SWVAG Ltd is pleased to announce that at a hearing on Friday, 21st July, in the High Court, by the order of Mr. Justice Ouseley, they were granted permission for a Judicial Review in the High Court in their action against Bath and North East Somerset Council (BANES). The judge heard arguments from SWVAG's counsel, Richard Harwood, and from Lisa Busch representing BANES, and ruled that BANES have a case to answer in two Planning cases regarding the Golden Valley Paddocks Ltd (GVP) intensive farming development in the Woolley/Swainswick Valley.
Mr. Justice Ouseley also granted SWVAG a Protective Cost Order so that they can proceed with their action with the comfort of being able to budget their costs. He also agreed with SWVAG's request to expedite the hearing as the case has been proceeding already for some considerable time and has ordered for the case to be heard in the next term ie the next 4 months.
Update: March 2011
There is currently also an article in the Bath Chronicle Website at
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/Anger-temporary-timber-home-application-valley/article-3366393-detail/article.html
But the company applied for planning permission to retain it and the council’s development control committee has now agreed that it can stay.”
Thank you for your continued support.
Please also download one of our petition posters to display and encourage others to sign:
A3 PETITION POSTER 1
A3 PETITION POSTER 2
FLYER 1
FLYER 2
