Claverham Factory Site Matters! (Developer Presentation Confirmed)

NEWLAND HOMES OWN THE FORMER FACTORY SITE:

DEVELOPER PRESENTATION AT CLAVERHAM VILLAGE HALL ON 7TH FEBRUARY BETWEEN 4 & 8PM

SEE INVITATION

READ HERE ABOUT HOW YOUR PLAN MODERATES THIS DEVELOPMENT

CLAVERHAM FUTURE SUGGESTS THAT YOU DO ATTEND AND RECORD YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS WEBSITE ON THIS POST.

When you are considering the upcoming development proposals, or responding to consultation, note the following matters. Of course there are other details but the essentials are:

TECHNICAL BITS IF YOU WISH TO KNOW (SEE BELOW FOR EFFECT)

I WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN (more detail in the Neighbourhood Plan and Council documents)

  • Development will adhere to the Neighbourhood Plan designation and allocation
  • The Council will confirm suitable housing development of the PS1 (factory) part of the site and deny permission for development of other areas.
  • The Heritage Assets will be preserved.
  • The TPO trees will be looked after and preserved.
  • Bat conservation will be a part of reporting and design.
  • The Village Hall will be able to function as now and continue to be bordered by the field adjacent Bishops Road.
  • The Gateway view (appearance of the site) for all entering the village and from the surrounding fields will be conserved with trees, walls and open space.
NEWLAND HOMES OWN ALL WITHIN THE RED LINE

The site can be thought of as different areas as shown in the Neighbourhood Plan.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE REFERRED TO IN POLICY D3 RELATES ONLY TO THE RED SHADED AREA. THE BUFFER ZONE, THE VILLAGE HALL AND THE MAY DAY FIELD OPEN SPACE SURROUNDING THE SITE ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA.

 

14 thoughts on “Claverham Factory Site Matters! (Developer Presentation Confirmed)”

  1. I had a conversation with an officer in the Planning Policy Section. It
    seems pretty clear that any application including development on the
    fields north and south of the UTAS site itself is likely to be vigorously
    resisted and officers will give the Claverham NP considerable ‘weight’ as
    supplementary guidance.
    The less good news is that the government has
    created a loophole for developers of brown fields sites as regards to
    affordable housing. Development on the site of buildings which have been
    vacant for a certain period can go ahead without offering affordable
    dwellings on those sites — but this applies only to the actual site of
    those buildings, not the whole area of land.

    Tom Leimdorfer

  2. Please send any comments you have to NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL’S website
    See Tom Leimdorfer’s very informed post for details, ie “ONCE A PLANNING PERMISSION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IT IS IMPORTANT TO RESPOND ON THE NORTH SOMERSET WEBSITE

    Michael Loader

  3. The Claverham Neighbourhood Plan is not yet ‘made’. It has been through
    consultation process and the referendum and the final stage of approval
    should be (according to the NSC Forward Plan) at the meeting of full
    Council, this month on 20th February. It is expected to be a formality at
    this stage with a unanimous vote. Once that happens, the Claverham
    Neighbourhood Plan will have the force of ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance’
    to be considered alongside the North Somerset Core Strategy and other
    material consideration. One test of the strength of Neighbourhood Plans will
    be the long delayed and much awaited judgement to be issued by the Secretary
    of State relating to the Farleigh Fields Appeal in Backwell. The Backwell NP
    was the first to be ‘made’ in North Somerset and it clearly designated
    Farleigh Fields as a Green Open Space, while identifying another are for
    development. If the developers were successful in their appeal against
    refusal of application, it would be contrary to the NP and would have
    national significance.

    At present we do not have a planning application, the potential applicants
    were purely ‘testing the waters’ and ticking the box public consultation.
    None of the site is currently identified in the North Somerset Site
    Allocations Plan, but the UTAS site itself is identified under the Claverham
    NP as suitable for development as either residential or ‘mixed use’
    (residential with some business use). Car use from up to 75 dwellings would
    equate to the previous car journeys to and from the site. The NP
    specifically states that there should be an element of affordable housing.
    The May Day field is already specified in the adopted NSC Sites & Policies
    document as a Green Space. Hence any developer would have difficulty in
    obtaining planning permission for a development beyond the UTAS brownfield
    site. Talking about potential developer contributions (S106 and CIL) is
    premature and governed by regulations anyway.

    NH’s ‘closing date’ for comments is irrelevant. It may be helpful to lodge
    objections, but this has no role in the planning process. Once a planning
    permission is submitted, it is important to respond on the North Somerset
    website. Yatton PC will need to make a recommendation and they cannot
    possibly go against their own adopted Neighbourhood Plan. Eventually, it is
    bound to go to North Somerset Planning & Regulatory Committee, unless
    officers refuse the application under delegated powers. It would seem odd
    for a developer to risk a lengthy and expensive appeal process, when a sound
    smaller scheme on the UTAS site would almost certainly be approved.

    Tom Leimdorfer

    1. Tom, thank you for your commentary, we very much appreciate your support and interest.

      Whilst probably a moot point I am informed that the Claverham Plan already has full weight in planning decisions and that it is now part of the Statutory Development Plan rather than supplementary planning guidance (I hope I have understood Govt Guidance on Neighbourhood Planning – Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 41-004-20170728). Obviously, we also now need to have it “made” by NSC, which we hope is a formality! (and I am not sure how being ‘Made’ impacts on any decisions)

      You are so right to point out the appeal case running in Backwell on Farleigh Fields, it would be a severe blow to Neighbourhood Plans across the country if it decided the Local Green Space could be developed in direct opposition to a made Neighbourhood Plan. I wonder if the decision was held up by the other appeal on the Written Statement on Neighbourhood Plans which was very recently decided to be at the High Court?

      I take your point that the current Sites and Policies Plan Part 2 document does have the May Day Field, by the Village Hall, allocated as Local Green Space. I do not know how the Examination of the latest modified version of Sites and Policies document is going to turn out. Unfortunately the very same space, was in our Neighbourhood Plan at Examination as Local Green Space and was refused by the Examiner. Maybe the continuance of the space in the Sites and Policies Plan Part 2 will confirm the space via the Local Plan, though its Examiner is informed of our Neighbourhood plan examination. An interesting point we shall have to await!

      I agree that raising objections at this stage cannot be part of the formal planning process and that all matters need to be raised as part of commentary on the application when it is made. WE will certainly drum up as much awareness of that when a formal application is made.

      I have been writing on the currently presented matters in the “developer consultation” to raise awareness of issues in advance of any application. I am sure it is understood that whilst there is positive support for the development allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan we do not wish it the Plan to be misrepresented or circumvented at any point in time. Community awareness is our aim.

      Thank you for pointing out that Newland Homes’ comments closing date is irrelevant to the planning process, there is often a world weariness thinking that developers are in command of the whole planning process.

      Your note on the developer contributions is well made. I also note that there are opportunities for the developer to reduce CIL contributions through Govt allowances for existing “in use” buildings… another loophole, similar to the Affordable Homes discount raised, maybe only applicable to the Brownfield element as well?

      Tom, please accept my personal thanks for your efforts which I am sure are echoed by a great many people in our local communities.

      Nigel Cooper

  4. I went to the meeting with Newlands Homes last night like many others and came away with the distinct impression that they have every intention of building on the North Field and May Day Field. Can we and the Claverham Future committee organise an open forum with Newlands Homes to talk about our issues. I think the intimate nature of the discussions last night masks the true intentions of NH.

    1. Thanks for posting these comments Michael, I am one of the residents that’s property backs on the North field and after speaking to Simon Richardson Associate Land Director of Newland Homes, it seems pretty clear that this was always their intent (very much the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ approach to mass development or rather they present themselves as ‘conscientious’ property developers).
      Ultimately the North field alone will net profits of in excess of £3M (probably a lot more). So i and others here on Franklins Way (in particular those directly effected) came away with exactly the same feelings about NH intentions.
      I managed to get Mr Richardson to confirm that for the peripheral areas of the development NH intend to submit a planning application for the North Field in March (which in particular is a serious concern for all residents who’s houses back onto the field itself) – some of which will go from having grassland to houses positioned directly behind their properties and in very close proximity.
      I just wanted to second Michael’s comments and to ask CF to help guide us and to ensure our discontent is channeled and lodged in the correct format etc. Any and all advise will be gratefully received.

    2. Our field backs on to the Northern Field and we went to the meeting last night. I agree with these comments. I also object to the feedback questionnaire implying that development of the Northern Field has already been approved, or that the only way to keep the May Day Field is by allowing the Northern Field to be built on. Both areas are specifically excluded from development in policy D3 in the Neighbourhood Plan – Newland Homes knows this but are pushing ahead with their plans anyway.

      1. To download the documents from Newland, if you weren’t able to attend yesterday:
        http://www.newlandhomes.co.uk/land/claverham where you can also submit further comments.
        A major concern of ours was the amount of ‘misleading information’ presented as fact:
        • The display quoting from the NP that the May Day field was not approved as a Local Green Space omitted to mention that the Examiner specifically excluded it, and the North field, from development. (Economical with the truth)
        • That NSC did not have its 5 year housing supply and as such developers could put in other sites for development. However a ministerial statement approved in the High Court last December stated that only a 3 year housing supply (which NSC have) is sufficient for the NP to prevail. (Wrong)
        • That 25 houses could be built adjacent to a settlement boundary – this applies to Service Villages ONLY like Yatton but NOT to Infill Villages like Claverham. (Wrong)
        Clearly any developer would have kept up to date with these details.
        Unless you had been very involved in preparation of the Plan and the latest developments going forward it is unlikely people will have been aware of this detail and might well have believed what NH said.
        As Nigel has said on the Proposed Housing Behind Chestnut Drive (we hope to update the name) Facebook page NH were advised by NSC to follow the Neighbourhood Plan as it has full weight. NH have ignored this.

  5. Re Newland scheme, as well as preserving the listed buildings the new buildings should be sympathetic in appearance to those listed e.g. no hideous reconstituted stone in proximity to old rubblestone.
    Also have they seen the huge badger set along the back eastern boundary. It spans their land and adjacent field. I will make these points at the presentation next week.

  6. Thank you Nigel for a clear and precise overview. Well done to all who battled to save most of the village from greedy developers. Let us hope that Newland keeps it’s promise. The factory site is the ideal site for development. The village hall,the field and the trees are all a good sign. Let’s hope the buffer zone is not breached.

  7. Celebrations are certainly in order. We all should recognize all of the outstanding characters who played ‘a blinder’ (to use the vernacular), especially the leaders of Claverham Future, without whose tenacity and un-believable talent, we would be more at the mercy of developers in years to come. Round one to Claverham United! Whenever the next battle arises, we can now, thanks to our community leaders, rally behind our Neighbourhood Plan …IN LAW and see that CLaverham residents get the respect they deserve…
    …to all of you, I say ‘thank you and well done!’.

  8. The whole village was involved in the hard work to create Claverham’s Neighbourhood Development Plan, and in the nick of time it has received overwhelming approval. We now have to ensure that Newland Home’s proposals for the factory site stick to the Objectives of the NDP and don’t breach the village fence. That’s why it is essential to attend the presentation on February 7th to make this clear.

  9. It is refreshing to see that bats and conservation of trees is being given some priority…or at least, it seems that way so far.
    As someone who will be living one field away from the proposed development, I am also glad to see there is , on the plans proposed, a buffer zone to keep the green I love.
    It’s a bit of a shame there won’t be any starter homes for the youngsters but at least this is making use of a site already developed and not taking yet another field.
    Thank you Claverham Future for all your very hard work to create the village plan. I, for one, am grateful.

  10. Excellent post, Nigel – thank you. Useful and informative links!

    Given Claverham will have an adopted neighbourhood plan on 20th February, I was assuming that if and when a version of this Newland scheme is granted planning consent, the share of the CIL payments going to Yatton Parish Council would then be 25% (one of the advantages of having a Plan!).

    Belated congratulations to you and all the Claverham Future team on a simply epic effort these past three years. We salute you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *