Participating Parishes: Chew Magna, Chew Stoke, Compton Martin, East Harptree, Hinton Blewett, Ubley & West Harptree      

 The  Chew  Valley  Neighbourhood  Plan  community  consultation  feedback  on  policy  options    

Policy  No.   Feedback  Ref.  No     Comments  –  ‘Agree’  =  Yes  to  Question  1:    Broadly  agreed  with  policies  in  the  Options  document.    Specific  

policy  agreement  recorded  as  ‘Agree’  against  relevant  policy  

CVNP  response  A  =Agreed  NA=  No  action    NC=Note  comment  NP=Not  relevant  to  NP  √  =  Noting  respondent’s  Agree  

Broad  Policy  Agreement  

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,  8  ,11,12,  13,14,15,16,  17,18,19,20,  21,22,23,  25,26,27,28,  29,30,31,33,  32,34,35,36,  37,38,39,40,  41,  42,  43  

 

Agree    

                             

HDE1   21     Agree.  Likely  that  our  landscape  will  change  dramatically  as  ash-­‐die  back  takes  hold.  Must  be  taken  into  account   Not  an  NP  issue  Rural  Landscape  

Character   23     Agree.        

  25     Agree       26     Agree.       29     Agree       28     Agree       30     Need  fracking  policy  as  this  would  adversely  affect  landscape  character,  views  &  traffic   In  PMP  =  addressed     33     Agree    

  34     Importance  of  trees  and  hedgerows  in  landscape  should  be  highlighted.    Developers  should  replace  trees  and  hedgerows  cut  down  with  those  of  same  spread  and  size.      

HDE12  Modified  Policy  =  addressed  

  2    

Should  not  build  more  look  alike  properties,  contemporary  one  offs  are  often  very  attractive   The  policy  does  not  suggest  that.  Can  do  with  local  materials  etc.  Generally  people  want  traditional  character  but  policy  does  not  rule  out  good  contemporary  design.      

  4     Agree    

  7     Agree       8     Agree       12     Agree    

  13    

Quotes  NPPF  ref  60....  –  Your  policies  appear  to  be  looking  to  impose  elements  of  design  and  style  that  are  contrary  to  NPPF  guidance.      The  NPPF  allows  for  local  character  while  not  imposing  styles.      Your  policy  mentions  conserving  character  without  any  reference  to  encourage  original  design.      Something  that  will  surely  be  essential  to  meet  growing  environmental  requirements  in  terms  of  construction,  materials  and  sustainability.    If  policy  is  too  prescriptive  you  risk  stifling  innovation  and  encouraging  villages  full  of  faux  reproductions.  

CVNP  not  imposing  design/style  merely  indicating  the  building  and  landscape  character.  See  also  response  to  “2”  above.  

  15    

Policies  are  vague.    If  policy  is  tied  to  Parish  Character  Assessments,  these  must  be  subject  to  same  degree  of  consultation  as  the  NP  

The  policies  aim  to  not  be  prescriptive.  The  Character  assessments  are  included  as  appendices.  

  17     Agree       19     Agree       35     Agree       38     Agree  –  retention  of  rural  landscape    

  41     The  rural  character  within  villages  themselves  is  also  important.  This  particularly  includes  trees,  stone  walls  and  hedgerows  in  villages  as  well  as  outside.    

Picked  up  via  HDE2  

  24     I  hope  I’m  correct  in  assuming  that  the  vagueness  of  ‘in  accordance  with  other  policies  in  the  plan’  will  be  replaced  with  a  list  of  policies.  A  developer  could  argue  that  he  can  chose  which  policies  to  accord  with,  and  win.    

Each  policy  counts  

                   

HDE2   21     Agree    

Settlement  Build  Character   23     New  build  must  match  existing   Policy  asks  to  reference  existing  

  27     Agree       29     Agree       28     Agree    

  30     Need  to  highlight  importance  of  sustainable  buildings  &  low  energy  use   PMP  has  detailed  policies  for  this.    HDE6b    addressed  

  33     Colour  of  commercial  &  farm  buildings  should  be  controlled  as  too  many  are  eyesores  and  need  camouflaging     Outside  scope     32     Disagree   NA  

  34     Importance  of  trees  and  hedgerows  in  landscape  should  be  highlighted.    Developers  should  replace  trees  and  hedgerows  cut  down  with  those  of  same  spread  and  size.      

See  answer  34  to  HDE1  

 31      

 

Don’t  always  want  to  go  traditional.    Sometimes  a  building  needs  to  be  more  in  the  present/modern   HDE1&2  guide  re  scale,  form,  setting,  materials.    Can  be  modern  design  but  would  not  be  supported  if  for  example  there  was  a  predominant  use  of  materials  that  are  not  seen  locally  or  use  different  roof  angles  etc…      

  2     Should  not  build  more  look  alike  properties,  contemporary  one  offs  are  often  very  attractive   See  answer  to  “31”  above  

  3     At  HDE2  you  do  refer  to  the  importance  of  design  in  any  new  developments.  However  I  really  do  think  that  this  section  needs  beefing  up.  If  it  is  a  given  that  there  will  be  new  development  it  is  essential  that  much  more  effort  is  made  by  developers  and  

Yes,  good  design  important  the  policy  is  a  guide.  See  answer  to  

their  architects  to  come  up  with  imaginative  and  sympathetic  designs  (it  does  not  in  my  view  need  to  be  identikit  with  the  rest  of  the  surrounding  village/area-­‐one  of  the  great  things  about  good  architecture  is  that  it  has  evolved  over  the  years  and  that  is  what  has  made  our  buildings  in  villages  and  towns  so  much  more  interesting).  And  please  can  good  quality  materials  be  used  as  well.  A  good  example  of  a  development  which  should  have  been  allowed  on  pure  development  grounds  was  Parkers  Mead  behind  the  School  in  East  Harptree  but  it  was  rightly  turned  down  because  the  quality  of  the  design  and  materials  there  was  terrible.  

“31”  above  

  4     Views  to  lakes,  Compton  Martin  Coombe,  hills  to  either  side   Will  reassess  all  the  views  for  the  draft    

  5     All  villages  are  working  villages  (not  chocolate  box)  &  have  been  added  to  in  various  period  styles  for  000s  of  years,  so  modern  development  should  be  allowed  

See  answer  to  “31”  above  

  7    Disagree.    Design  might  be  inhibited.    Don’t  want  pastiche  of  country  cottage.      Good  design  is  key   Yes,  good  design  important  the  

policy  is  a  guide.  See  answer  to  “31”  above  

  8     Agree    

  11     Any  development  should  be  mixed  style  rather  than  uniform  in  design  –  stone  face/rendered,  different  rooflines,  mixed  frontages  

Outside  scope,  and  would  be  too  prescriptive.  

  12     Room  for  small  scale  eco  houses  made  from  materials  other  than  concrete  &  stone   If  within  the  character  of  an  area.    

  13    

Quotes  NPPF  ref  60....  –  Your  policies  appear  to  be  looking  to  impose  elements  of  design  and  style  that  are  contrary  to  NPPF  guidance.      The  NPPF  allows  for  local  character  while  not  imposing  styles.      Your  policy  mentions  conserving  character  without  any  reference  to  encourage  original  design.      Something  that  will  surely  be  essential  to  meet  growing  environmental  requirements  in  terms  of  construction,  materials  and  sustainability.    If  policy  is  too  prescriptive  you  risk  stifling  innovation  and  encouraging  villages  full  of  faux  reproductions.  

As  HDE1  

  15     Policies  are  vague.    If  policy  is  tied  to  Parish  Character  Assessments,  these  must  be  subject  to  same  degree  of  consultation  as  the  NP  

As  HDE1  

  17     Agree       18     Agree.    Use  of  local  stone/building  materials  reflecting  local  limestone  geology  ?       19     Agree       35     Agree       39     Agree       40     Agree    

  24    The  look  of  the  place  is  important  that  the  look  reflects  what  the  place  is.    There  is  risk  of  promoting  heritage  theme  park  rather  than  living  community.    Construction  to  allow  for  design  which  respects  the  existing  surrounds  and  provides  solutions  to  21thC  problems  

Policies  are  flexible  enough  to  allow  this.  

                             

HDE3   21     Agree.    Couldn’t  understand  graphics  at  consultation.    Many  of  best  views  only  available  to  walkers.   A.  Also  try  to  make  graphics  clearer  for  next  version.  

Important  views     22     Lakes  and  hills   A     26     Knowle  Hill-­‐view  of  most  of  valley,  Top  of  hill  on  Norton  Lane-­‐view  over  Chew  Magna  to  Lake   NC  

  27     Agree.    Views  across  valley  from  Mendip  scarp  at  Ubley  &  Compton  Martin,  also  from  Hinton  Blewett.  View  South  from  Breech  Hill  and  ?  

NC  

  29     Agree.      Entire  skyline  surround  the  Chew  Valley,  looking  in  and  out   Skyline  HDE4  modified  &  slight  modification  to  HDE3  

  28     Agree.    All,  particularly  top  of  East  Harptree,  above  Compton  Martin  and  Prospect  Stile  Hinton  Blewett   NC     33     Agree   A     32     Lakes  and  the  hills   A  

  34    

Views  into  and  out  of  CV  are  impacted  by  development  in  other  parishes  and  other  councils.    Should  be  more  communication  between  bodies  so  views  are  not  affected.  

Some  of  our  policies  will  help.  Can  monitor  &  comment  on  all  planning  appln  regardless  of  authority.    

  31     Don’t  build  on  everything.    CV  needs  preserving.    Also  Common  lands,  Knowle  Hill,  Pagans  Hill,  Ubley  Coombe,  Compton  Martin  Pound,  Hinton  Blewett  Prospect  Stile,  West  Harptree  top  of  Harptree  Hill,  East  Harptree  top  of  village  

There  is  no  plan  to!  Common  land  is  already  designated.      

  1     Agree.  See  village  character  assessments.  See  EH  document  in  particular   A     2     Agree.    Views  from  Chew  Magna  towards  Chew  Stoke    by  of  Mendips  is  delightful   A  &  NC     3     Any  Village  Design  Statement  adopted  should  be  incl  as  appendix,  e.g.  Chew  Magna   Noted  –  will  include     4           5     Horizons  and  skylines.    CV  is  essentially  rural  and  that  needs  to  be  protected   A     6     Norton  Lane  looking  SW  over  Chew  Magna,  Lake  and  valley  @  109m  AHSL   C     7     Top  of  School  Lane  (Shoreditch),  Breach  Hill  Lane,  lake   A     8     Agree.    Chew  Valley  Lake   A     12     Skyline  views,  from  edge  of  Mendips  towards  lake.    Houses  should  not  obscure  existing  houses’  view  of  green  space   A.  No  entitlement  to  view     13     Disagree  –  might  come  back  to  haunt  you!   NC  

  14    Nempnett  Thrubwell  SW  over  Blagdon  lake  Prospect  Stile  HB  NW  over  Chew  lake  Stone  bridge  at  end  of  Dumpers  Lane.  Chew  Magna,  River  Chew  looking  upstream  

Not  CV  area.      Included  Not  long  view  

  17     Agree.    Views  of  the  lakes  when  climbing  up  out  of  Ubley  southwards   NC     18     Agree   )     19     Agree.    View  in  and  around  Hinton  Blewett  are  important   )     20     View  of  Lake  from  East  Harptree  and  side  of  Mendips   )          A     35     Agree   )     38     Prospect  Stile  and  from  Lower  Road   )     40     Agree.      All  landscape  views  are  important   )  

  41    As  well  as  the  “within  valley”  views,  it  is  important  to  remember  the  substantial  impact  of  the  valley  as  you  enter  it  from  surrounding  hills.  For  example,  the  stunning  view  from  Dundry  Hill.  Lakes  views.  The  many  smaller  hills  within  and  bounding  the  valley.    

NC  

                             

HDE4   21     View  from  top  of  Dundry  Hill,  south.    View  of  Monarch’s  Way  footpath,  north  (Smitham  Hill  –  Greendown)   A.   NC  Skyline  Policy   22     Lakes  and  hills   A  

  26     Knowle  Hill-­‐view  of  most  of  valley.  Top  of  hill  on  Norton  Lane-­‐view  over  Chew  Magna  to  Lake   A  

  27     Views  across  valley  from  Mendip  scarp  at  Ubley  &  Compton  Martin,  also  from  Hinton  Blewett.  View  South  from  Breech  Hill  and  ?  

A.    NC  

  29     Agree.  Entire  skyline  surround  the  Chew  Valley,  looking  in  and  out   A     28     Agree   A     33     How  could  development  enhance  any  of  our  local  views?    All  our  views  are  important   A     32     Lakes  and  the  hills   A     34     Views  into  and  out  of  CV  are  impacted  by  development  in  other  parishes  and  other  councils.    Should  be  more  communication   See  answer  to  HDE3    

between  bodies  so  views  are  not  affected.     1     Agree   A     2     Views  from  Chew  Magna  towards  Chew  Stoke    by  of  Mendips  is  delightful   A     4     Agree   A     5     Horizons  and  skylines.    CV  is  essentially  rural  and  that  needs  to  be  protected   A     11     Agree  –  new  properties  which  spoil  skyline  should  be  resisted   A     12     Skyline  views,  from  edge  of  Mendips  towards  lake   A     13     Agree   A     17     Agree   A     19     Agree   A                                

HDE5   21     No  problem  with  social  housing  providing  it  is  always  let  to  local  people  who  wish/need  to  live  in  the  valley.    Don’t  support  social  housing  for  those  who  prefer  to  live  in  Bath,  Radstock,  Keynsham.    Downsizing  NA,  Sheltered  NA  

Added  HDE5b  

Housing  Need   22     Social  housing,  cheaper  market  housing,  near  shop  &  transport.    Low  maintenance  small  outside  area.    Or  retirement  village  but  needs  to  be  large  to  be  sustainable.    Remote  wardens  have  limited  use.  

A  

  23     Cheaper  market  housing.    No  more  social  housing  needed.    Sheltered  Housing  –  yes,  but  where?   A     25     Social  housing,  cheaper  market  housing.    Bungalow  with  garden  easy  to  maintain   A     26     Social  housing,  cheaper  market  housing  –  2/3  bedroom   A  

  27     Agree.    Social  housing,  cheaper  market  housing,  but  high  quality  affordable,  not  cheap  housing  that  doesn’t  fit  with  HDE2.  Other:  warden  controlled  properties.    Better  provision  required  for  elderly  

A  

         

  29     Other:    quality  housing  for  downsizing  by  older  population.    Smaller  properties  to  look  after,  less  maintenance,  less  worry.    Want  to  say  in  the  area,  preferably  the  same  village  

A  

  28     Agree.    Other  –  downsizing  bungalows.    Bungalows  easier  to  cope  with   A     30     Social  housing,  cheaper  market  housing   A  

  33    Social  housing,  Cheaper  market  housing  –  need  protections  to  prevent  developments  for  2nd/holiday  homes,  Other  –  developers  should  be  required  to  provide  some  1  &  2  bed  bungalows  in  any  development  above  a  certain  size.    Register  for  local  people  seeking  to  downsize  to  be  given  first  refusal  on  suitable  properties  within  CV.    Estate  agents  could  be  consulted.  

A  

  32     Housing  that  local  youngsters  can  afford  so  not  forced  to  move  away.  Houses  with  fewer  bedrooms,  bungalow,  Flat   A  

  34    Cheaper  market  housing.    Should  include  affordables.      Social  housing  provision  should  have  sufficient  infrastructure  provision,  e.g.  transport,  job  opportunities.  Previous  social  housing  as  lead  to  social  isolation.    Houses  with  fewer  bedrooms.    Small  scale  retirement  village  similar  to  Sandford.    Look  of  such  development  in  it's  setting  would  be  important  

A  

  31     Downsizing  /  to  release  so  families  can  stay  to  move  up.    Possible  Eco/sustainable  builds.    Small  flats  2  or  3  storeys.    Houses  with  fewer  bedrooms,  also  bungalows.    No  large  caravan  parks.    Possibly  some  sheltered  housing.  

A  

  1     Quality  2/3  bed  houses  at  market  rate   A     2     Affordable  housing  is  an  important  issue.    Some  smaller  houses  of  1800sqft  of  individual  design  and  quality  not  all  the  same   A     4     Housing  for  young  people  to  stay  in  the  valley.    Cheaper  market  housing   A     5     Help  to  buy  for  young  people.    Other.       A  

  6     Social  housing,  Cheaper  market  housing,  Other  deeded  but  siting  is  critical.    Have  already  downsized  to  3  generation  house  share.    Good  quality  granny  annexes  are  very  rare.  

A  

  7     Agree.    No  more  (social  housing?)  need  in  Chew  Stoke.    But  for  downsizing  –  house  with  fewer  bedrooms,  bungalow.    Sheltered  not  feasible  in  Chew  Stoke.    Something  like  Sandford  might  work  in  another  village.      

NC  

  8     Social  housing,  Cheaper  Market  Housing     A  

  9     Cheaper  housing  1-­‐2  bedroom  needed  more  than  family  homes.    Cost  £100K-­‐£150K.    House  with  fewer  bedrooms,  bungalow.    Retirement  village  

A  

  11    

The  only  development  of  any  size  since  1990  in  EH  is  houses  at  Proud  Cross.      It's  a  great  development  which  attracted  young  families  to  the  village.      A  similar  development  of  2&3  bedroomed  houses  would  be  welcome  and  help  keep  village  vibrant.    Don’t  need  more  4-­‐5  bedroom  executive  properties.      2-­‐3  bed  bungalows  or  chalet  bungalows  would  be  particularly  attractive  to  older  people  who  want  to  downsize  but  remain  local.    EH  not  suitable  place  for  retirement  complex  or  sheltered  accommodation,  but  Chew  Magna  or  WH  would  be  better  

A  (C)  

  12     Smaller  dwellings,  i.e.  2  beds.      Have  already  downsized.       A    

  14     Agree.  Social  Housing,  Cheaper  market  housing,  Houses  with  fewer  bedrooms.    Independent  house  or  apartment  with  links  to  remote  warden  

NC  

  15     Questions  need  for  social  /affordable  housing  in  each  village.    Need  should  be  judged  on  a  valley  wide  basis  as  some  villages  have  more  suitable  sites  than  others    3  bed  houses  within  small  scale  development  

NC  

  17     Social  housing,  Cheaper  market  housing.      Important  that  such  housing  is  for  local  residents.      Would  NOT  support  social  housing  for  people  outside  the  area.    Retirement  village  

A  (C  –  re  HDE5b).  NC.  

  18     Social  housing,  Cheaper  market  housing,  Other  (sheltered  housing  for  elderly),  Bungalow,  Flat  with  lift  access  to  1st  &  2nd  floors.    Warden  living  on  site,  remote  warden  link  24/7  like  Sandford  village  

A  

  19     Agree.    Cheaper  market  housing,  House  with  fewer  bedroom,  Retirement  village   A  

  20    

Small  size,  privately  owned  homes  suitable  for  young  families  &  first  time  buyers  –  1  &  2  bed  cottages,  NOT  social  housing/low  rent.  Downsizing  style  &  size  homes  for  older  CV  people  who  don’t  want  to  leave  area  but  need  smaller  homes  –  1  &  2  bed  cottages.  Also  2  &  3  bed  homes  with  parking  for  2  cars,  small  gardens,  close  to  village  centre,  amenities  and  public  transport.    Smaller  homes  with  links  to  remote  warden,  communal  gardens,  plenty  of  parking  with  access  to  village  centres  &  public  transport  

C  –  Housing  need  survey  will  indicate    A  

  35     Cheaper  market  housing,  Bungalow   A     36     Social  housing,  Cheaper  market  housing,  Bungalow   A     37     Social  housing,  Cheaper  market  housing   A     38     Cheaper  market  housing,  Bungalow     A     39     Bungalow,  retirement  village   A     40     Cheaper  market  housing,  Bungalow  for  the  ageing,  independent  house  or  apartment  with  links  to  remote  warden   A  

  41    Housing  suitable  for  younger  families  at  economic  price.  But  not  subject  to  “right  to  buy”  which  takes  them  out  of  the  economic  rental  pool.  Small  (eg.  2  bed)  accessible  within  reach  of  village  amenities.  Would  go  to  an  existing  complex  elsewhere.    

A  

     

  Response  to  most  of  above:  Policy  HDE5a  ought  to  deal  with  the  issue  of  what  best  suited  to  the  area  at  any  point  in  time.    

                   

HDE6   21    Agree.  No  –  householders  have  option  to  install  their  own  schemes.      My  renewable  energy  scheme  is  linked  to  grid  &  switches  off  during  power  cut.    Fears  small  scale,  i.e.  community  schemes  may  be  costly  to  administer.  Supports  all  renewable  energy  sources  provided  not  detrimental  to  landscape.    No  interested  in  local  project,  comments  above  refer.  

A  

Sustainability   22     Impossible  to  manage.    Solar  panels  on  roofs  or  fields  ugly  if  seen  from  highway.    Rainwater/greywater  collection  systems  simple  &  cheap.    CRE  expensive  to  manage  

A  

  23     Solar  panels  not  pretty.    Not  easy  in  Chew  Valley.    CRE  might  be  possible   A  

 

24    

HDE6a  The  Government  has  abandoned  its  zero  carbon  target  so  this  policy  needs  to  be  amended/rewritten.  Suggest  change  ‘should’  to  ‘must’  and  provide  a  definition  of  ‘sustainable  development’.  We’ve  all  seen  developers  promote  their  ‘sustainable’  proposals  only  to  find  out  they  mean  the  insulation  levels  are  a  bit  better  than  Building  Regulations,  the  legal  minimum.  See  ‘Aspirations’  below.  Some  enlightened  LPAs  have  for  years  demanded  that  a  proportion  of  energy  requirements  for  new  developments  be  met  by  renewables.  Why  are  we  so  behind  here?    

NC  

 

25    

Agree.  Lovely  rolling  countryside,  full  of  exquisite  view.    Landscape  man-­‐made:  farms,  villages,  lakes,  it  has  to  be  an  evolving  thing.    Affordable  housing  desperately  needed  for  young  to  stay  in  area.    Should  produce  some  of  our  own  energy.    Housing  clusters  or  wind  turbines  on  hills  will  show  but  not  necessarily  mean  they  will  spoil  views  or  skyline  provided  sensitively  planned  and  placed,  as  they  are  much  needed  part  of  our  evolving  landscape.    Definitely  need  solar  and  wind  

Part  covered  in  PMP  and  NPPF  

  26    Agree.    Difficult  to  make  attractive  to  investors  since  Govt  reduced  subsidies.    Would  like  medium  wind  turbines  in  certain  locations…  Small  scale  hydro  on  River  Chew  leats  

A  &  NC  

  27    Depend  on  scheme  &  cautious  of  any  scheme  of  scale.  Must  increase  use  of  renewable  nut  not  at  expenses  of  character  and  landscape  of  Chew  Valley.    Solar  farms  need  very  careful  siting,  views  must  not  be  compromised..    Solar  panels  should  not  be  ‘silver-­‐edged’  variety.    Wind  turbines  are  ‘no-­‐go’.    

A  &  NC  

  30    

Need  to  produce  our  own  low  carbon/renewable  energy  &  not  rely  on  fossil  fuels.    Need  to  increase  use  of  renewable/LC  energy  to  reduce  use  of  fossil  fuels  and  reduce  climate  change.    Community-­‐led  schemes  can  reduce  energy  bills,  better  than  allowing  fracking.    Examples  quoted  are  good  &  will  enable  community  to  take  control  of  its  energy  use  and  benefit  from  profits,  plus  minimise  carbon  footprint  –  solar,  wind,  heat  pumps,  biogas  &  small  scales  biomass  

A    HDE6  split  into  a  &  b  

  33    Disagree.    Solar  panels  should  be  for  towns  and  cities  only.    If  one  wind  turbine  appears  we  will  end  up  with  dozens  like  candles  on  birthday  cake.    No  objection  to  providing  anything,  providing  no  an  eyesore  or  end  up  being  expensive  white  elephant.      Solar  farms  a  criminal  waste,  should  be  banned  from  countryside.  

HDE6  split  into  a  &  b  

  32     Should  be  more  wind  turbines,  they  don’t  spoil  the  landscape/views.    Renewables  vital  for  continuation  of  our  species.  Yes  to  CL  renewables  but  not  fracking  

A  

  34    Concerned  about  visual  and  noise  impact.  Any  renewable  energy  scheme  needs  careful  consideration  of  effect  on  views  and  precedent  it  sets.    Reservations  of  effectiveness  of  wind  turbines  and  visual  impact.      Would  need  EIA.    OK  with  solar  panels  that  are  black.      CL  maybe,  if  suitable  site  and  have  little  visual  impact  

A  &  HDE6  split  into  a  &  b  

  31     Possible  in  future  as  technology  advances.    Should  exploit  it,  not  sure  on  fracking.    Solar  panels   A  

  1    No  solar  farms,  panels,  pylons  or  wind  farms  –  all  ugly.    Alternatives  available.    Our  responsibility  to  protect  country.    Solar  farms,  wind  power,  solar  panels,  fracking,  hydropower  are  all  ugly  &  intrusive.......    Build  Hinckley.      No  to  CL  Renewables.    It's  an  agricultural  area  which  should  be  protected.  

Accept  comment  but  need  to  consider  how  to  treat  applications  

  2     Fear  of  fields  being  given  over  to  solar  panels.    Prefer  anything  not  unsightly  –  heat  pumps.      No  solar  panels  on  roofs.       4     Disagree.    Re  renewables  –  as  long  as  adheres  to  HDE1&2  then  no  objection   A  

  5     Should  encourage  renovations  of  older  buildings  (so  long  as  it's  not  listed).    All  renewables  should  be  encouraged  on  as  many  developments  and  renovations  as  possible  

A  

  6     There  is  already  investing  in  some  CL  renewables.    Supports  all  sources  of  green  energy:    solar,  biomass  biogas  but  first  improve  insulation,  quality  and  building  regs  

A  

  7     Want  more  of  CL  renewable  schemes.  CHP  plant,  solar  panels  sites  if  screened   A     8     Yes.    More  renewables,  Photo  voltaic  farm,  farm  based  biodigestors   A  

  12    Agree.    Could  have  wind  turbines  on  Mendips  without  affecting  adversely  use  of  beauty  of  area.    Anaerobic  digester  for  local  waste  only.    Grants  for  biomass,  heat  pumps,  solar  in  individual  properties.  Solar  panels  on  village  halls,  wind  &  water  where  feasible  

A  

  13    

This  only  appears  to  cover  new  build.      Is  there  a  call  for  guidance  on  retrofit  renewables?      New  development  can  incorporate  sustainability  within  the  overall  design.    Installation  in  existing  buildings  is  usually  more  of  a  problem.      While  there  is  guidance  for  listed  buildings  and  buildings  within  conservation  areas,  these  are  a  minority.    Can  you  help  to  control  the  growing  number  of  PV  cells  appearing  on  roofs  that  seem  to  have  no  consistency  in  layout  or  design.    Some  

Policies  apply  to  planning  applications.  However  some  changes  on  existing  buildings  falls  under  permitted  

are  discreet,  many  are  eyesores.      The  only  way  to  guarantee  their  placement  would  be  a  requirement  for  planning  permission  for  all  installation  but  don’t  this  likely  to  be  popular.    Over  last  25  years  I  have  known  the  CV  have  seen  many  fine  clay  tiled  roofs  replace  with  concrete  and  many  beautiful  timber  windows  stripped  out  in  favour  of  plastic.      I  would  hope  you  could  do  the  best  you  can  to  help  preserve  the  character  of  our  existing  building  stock  and  at  the  same  time  encourage  the  best  in  modern  design  to  lead  to  a  better  future  of  buildings.  

development  and  the  NP  can  not  withdraw  permission.  Retrofitting  listed  buildings  does  have  some  control.  Hard  to  preserve  character  of  existing  build  stock  if  not  Listed,  but  could  ask  PC  to  note  important  buildings.  

  14     Agree.    Renewable  energy  sources  should  be  encouraged  and  developed  in  the  valley.    Chelwood  CEL  is  an  example   A  

  15    Question  relationship  of  question  to  HDE6  as  draft  –  should  be  separate  policy  of  community  schemes.    Strong  support  for  Renewable  provided  no  detrimental  to  character  of  surrounding  and  visual  impact  is  minimised.        Should  be  separate  policy  for  CL  Renewables  

PMP.    But  (HDE6a)  

  16     Agree   A     17     Must  be  done  sensitively.    Do  not  like  ground  mounted  solar  panels  or  wind  turbines.    Don’t  know  re  Renewables   A  

  18     Agree.    Of  major  importance.    Existing  householders  should  be  encouraged  to  install  renewable/sustainable  domestic  energy  generation  also.    Renewables  a  must.      Should  be  incentivised.    CV  should  have  CL  renewable  energy  projects  

A  

  19     Agree  –  whichever  is  appropriate  to  the  area  and  doesn’t  compromised  the  setting  and  general  character  of  the  surroundings.   A     35     Yes   A     36     Yes.  Support  where  appropriate.    CL  renewables  –  wind  turbines,  solar  panels   A     37     Yes.    Support  all  renewables  where  appropriate,  small  scale  wind  turbines,  NOT  wind  farms   A     38     Important  but  not  at  any  risk  to  the  ‘look’  of  the  area.    No  large  windmills  or  large  areas  of  solar  panels   A     39     Yes.    Support  generally,  but  NOT  wind   A     40     Yes.  Renewables  great  wherever  appropriate  and  CL  renewables  whatever  appropriate,     A  

  24     Govt  has  abandons  zero  carbon  targets  so  policy  needs  to  be  amended.    Suggest  change  ‘should’  to  ‘must’  and  incl  definition  of  ‘sustainable  development’  

A  

  41    Strongly  support.  But  would  also  oppose  wind  turbines.  Keen  on  community  systems  shared  by  multiple  households.  CHP  maybe.  I  think  the  renewable  energy  technologies  will  improve  significantly  over  the  next  several  years  and  we  should  be  proactive  in  assessing  these.    

A  

                             

HDE7   33     Agree   √  Traffic  Impact   12     Agree   √  

  18     Agree   √     19     Agree   √     20     Agree   √  

  24    

HDE7a  One  of  the  main  reasons  for  the  change  in  both  the  look  and  the  nature  of  the  Chew  Valley,  as  elsewhere,  is  the  rise  in  use  of  the  private  motor  car,  (moving  and  stationary).  A  very  large  majority  of  people  use  cars  to  get  about  including  for  commuting  to  work.  Policies  which  promote  the  close  proximity  of  work  and  living  will  tend  to  reduce  this.  Another  way  to  reduce  these  effects  is  the  promotion  of  alternative  means  of  transport  including  public  transport,  walking  and  cycling.    Abercrombie  carried  out  an  interesting  piece  of  work  in  the  1960s  when  asked  by  government  how  to  keep  the  traffic  moving  around  the  congested  university/Bloomsbury  area  of  London.  He  calculated  the  rise  in  road  traffic  and  the  space  needed  to  accommodate  all  these  vehicles  and  concluded  that  in  order  to  keep  it  moving  all  you  had  to  do  was  flatten  all  the  buildings  and  build  roads  in  their  place.    

NC  

         

                   

HDE8   21     Parking  spaces  should  be  linked  to  size  of  dwelling.  2  is  too  few  for  4  bed  house   Has  been  increased  Parking  domestic   25     Agree    

  26     Needs  to  be  B&NES  planning  policy     NC  

  30    Encourage  safe  cycling  &  walking  &  car  sharing  to  reduce  need  for  vehicles   CVNP  evidence  shows  

increasing  car  use,  so  planning  for  it.      

  33     Who  parks  in  their  garage?    Usually  too  small.    Could  some  dwellings  have  one  parking  space  to  rear  and  out  of  sight  of  road?   Design  issue  

  34     Developers  should  incl  garages  or  covered  parking  spaces  in  planning  apps  to  allow  integration  of  parking  within  visually  acceptable  development  

Design  issue  

  31     1  space  for  a  smaller  car  and  2nd.    No  other  non-­‐resident  able  to  park  there   NC     4     Strongly  agree   A  

  11     Planning  permission  should  not  be  given  unless  there  are  2  parking  spaces.    Integral  garages  not  good  as  they  often  get  absorbed  into  the  property.    Separate  garages  less  likely  to  be  used  that  way  

A  

  19     Agree   A     20     1+garage  ok  if  used  for  parking,  not  converted  into  a  room.    2  better   A  

  24    

HDE8a  Again,  even  with  the  caveat  ‘the  design  is  in  accordance  with  other  policies  in  the  plan’  this  policy  is  open  to  interpretation.  Rather  than  ‘support...all  new  residential  developments...’  this  might  be  clearer  along  the  lines:  ‘all  proposals  for  new  dwellings  shall  incorporate  a  minimum  of  2  off-­‐street  parking  spaces  for  each  dwelling.’  This  of  course  assumes  we  are  all  happy  with  the  consequences  of  introducing  all  these  additional  vehicles  into  the  CV.    

NC  

  35     Yes   A     38     Yes.    Rural  areas  that  have  little  or  no  public  transport  car  usage  is  important,  therefore  parking  is  essential   A     24     Suggest    new  dwellings  all    have  a  minimum  of  2  off-­‐street  parking  spaces   A     41     B&NES  Planning  policy  in  this  area  has  been  particularly  weak.  Witness  Chew  Magna  Norton  Lane  and  Old  Surgery  

developments.  The  view  seems  to  be  “give  the  residents  a  bus  timetable  and  they  won’t  need  a  second  car”.  The  impact  of  not  enforcing  HDE8  is  on  adjacent  parking  spaces  which  are  essential  to  local  shops  etc.    

A  

                             

HDE9   33     Agree   √  Sustainable  drainage  

34     Agree   √  

  14     Agree   √     15     Agree   √     19     Agree   √     24     Should  be  a  requirement   √     43     Existing  buildings  

1.  The  Neighbourhood  Plan  will  support  and  encourage  alterations  and  additions  to  existing  houses  at  risk  of  flooding,  that  will  help  mitigate  the  risk,  improve  flood  protection,  and  make  the  building  more  flood  resilient  (e.g.  water  proof/resilient  materials,  elevated/concrete  floors,  raised  roof  heights  and  additional  storeys  to  relocate  living  areas  above  ground  level).  New  housing  and  access  roads  2.  Any  new  development  of  dwelling  houses,  residential  homes,  social  housing  and  their  access  roads  in  areas  shown  on  the  Environment  Agency’s  flood  risk  maps  as  having  a  1%  (1:100  years)  or  greater  annual  risk  of  flooding  from  watercourses  or  run-­‐off,  will  not  be  supported.  

NC.  Policy  will  be  reviewed.  Consider  mod  to  3  parts.  (new,  existind,suds)  Also  look  at  parking  policy      NC  –  discuss  with  EA  and  Drainage  team.  

                            √  

HDE10   28     Agree.   √  Community  green  

space  33     Disagree   √  

  34     Agree   √     12     Agree   √     14     Agree   √     19     Agree   √     24     Should  be  a  requirement   √           √                      

HDE11   29     Agree   √  Protection  of  Green  Spaces  

28     Agree.   √  

  33     Agree   √     34     Agree   √     2     Rectory  field,  Chew  Stoke  is  wonderful  community  asset,  much  used   √    Already  in  B&NES  register     5     Agree   √     12     Agree   √     18     Agree   √     19     Agree   √     24     11a  There  is  potential  for  conflict  with  other  policies  e.g  the  need  to  maintain  open  space  between  villages  and  settlements.     NC     35     Agree   √     38     Green  spaces  are  important   √           √                      

HSE12   21     Agree   √  Tree  &  Ancient  hedgerow  

conservation  

29     Agree   √  

  28     Agree.   √     33     Agree   √     34     Agree   √     12     Agree   √     19     Agree   √     24     Should  be  a  requirement   √     35     Agree   √                                

HDE13   21     Agree.  Importance  of  much  of  EH  as  roosting  &  feeding  ground  for  15  species  of  bats  is  well  known   √  Green  Corridors  

&  Bio  22     Bats  everywhere.    Orchids  on  Breach  Hill   √  

  23     Greenacres  Farm.    Wildflower  meadow   √     26     Agree.   √     27     It  is  wide  variety  of  wildlife  that  makes  area  important   √     29     Agree   √     28     Agree.    Bats  in  attics  in  old  buildings   √     33     Agree   √     34     Agree   √     31     Agree   √     1     See  EH  character  assessment   √     2     Bats  at  Old  Rectory  field   √     4     Bats  at  Compton  Martin  Coombe,  also  orchids   √     5     Bats  at  Chew  Magna  reservoir   √     6     Bats  in  trees   √     12     Bats,  owls  and  dormice   √     15     Needs  addition  to  explicitly  state  that  the  NP  ‘will  not  support  any  development  for  new  buildings  in  Priority  Habitats  and  

SCNIs’.      Lane  S  of  Chew  Magna  bordering  River  Chew  is  SNA  (506)  and  includes  a  SNCI  (BN286)  and  Priority  Habitat.    Rare/notifiable  species  include  otters,  damsel/dragon  flies  and  white  clawed  crayfish  at  Tunbridge  

See  B&NES  PMP    NC  

  17     Agree.    Wild  flowers  and  wildfowl  near  Blagdon  lake   √     19     Agree   √     36     Bats,  otters,  hares,  deer  at  Coley  and  Hinton  Blewett   √     37     Bats,  otters,  hares,  deer  at  Coley  and  Hinton  Blewett   √                                

HD14   21     Agree.    Importance  of  much  of  EH  as  roosting  &  feeding  ground  for  15  species  of  bats  is  well  known   √  Water  Life  Bio   22     Bats  everywhere.    Orchids  on  Breach  Hill   √  

  29     Agree   √     28     Agree.   √     33     Agree   √     34     Compton  Martin  has  pond  with  interesting  flora   √     21     Agree   √     1     See  EH  character  assessment   √     12     Agree   √     17     Agree   √     19     Agree   √                                

HSE15   29     Agree   √  

Dark  Skies  policy   28     Agree.   √     33     Agree   √     34     Agree   √     2     Policy  very  important.    Almost  unique  in  this  day  and  age  and  very  special.   √     4     Agree   √     12     Agree   √     14     Agree   √     17     Agree   √     19     Agree   √     20     Agree   √     39     Agree   √     40     Agree   √                                

BF1   25     Wording  of  policy  unclear   Reworded  -­‐  C  Retention  of  small  

businesses  31     Locals  need  jobs   A  

  37     Agree   √     24     Supporting  change  of  use  does  not  promote  retention  of  small  businesses   C  –  Change  of  Use  is  permitted  

–  have  to  allow  unless  good  reason  not  to  

                             

BF2   21     Not  sure  what  means.    Running  volunteer  shop  in  EH  hard  work.   √  Protecting  Significant  Facilities  

22     State  intervention  in  business  is  unprofitable   √  

  23     Protect  ACVs  if  necessary   √     26     Agree.  Yes  to  general  store,  pubs  &  post  offices   √     27     Community  ownership  of  ACV  under  threat  worth  considering   √     29     Shop,  post  office  &  pub  are  important  facilities  in  the  Chew  Valley   √     28     Agree  re  ACVs   √     30     Agree   √     33     No  fast  food  takeaways,  as  nuisance  &  detrimental  to  traditional  eateries.  Yes  to  ACVs  provided  no  live  music  licences  because  

it's  anti-­‐social  Not  planning    

  4     Agree   √     5     Yes,  on  case  by  case  basis   √     7     Who  decides  if  ‘significant’?    ACV  for  Yew  Tree  seems  ridiculous   √     14     ACV:  New  Manor  Farm  Shop  and  tea  rooms.    Support  farming  diversification  and  tourism   √     15     Yes   √     17     Agree  re  ACVs   √     18     Agree  to  significant  facilities  being  ACVs   √  

  19     Agree  re  ACVs   √     20     ACVs  for  pubs,  shops,  post  office  &  village  halls   √     35     Agree  re  ACVs   √     36     Agree  re  ACVs   √     37     Agree  re  ACVs   √     38     Agree  re  ACVs   √     39     Agree  re  ACVs   √     40     Agree  re  ACVs.   √     24     Policy  should  be  ‘change  of  use  will  be  resisted’   Must  be  positive     41     You  have  included  CV  School  in  BF5.  All  our  Primary  Schools  and  pre-­‐schools  are  vital  assets  within  their  respective  villages.  

Some  have  been  threatened  in  the  past  and  this  may  happen  again  at  some  time.  Their  local  community  value  needs  to  be  recognized  and  protected.    

Outside  the  scope  of  NP  

                             

BF3   21     Up  to  a  point.    Do  not  wish  to  see  CV  become  like  Cheddar  Gorge   √  Diversification  for  

tourism  22     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism   √  

  23     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism   √     26     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism   √     27     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism   √     28     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism   √     30     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism   √     33     Yes  but  only  if  within  existing  hard-­‐standing  areas,  otherwise  it  could  be  a  route  to  housebuilding  via  change  of  use  

applications  Would  have  to  comply  with  other  policies  

  34     Want  central  effort  to  support  dairy  herd.      Not  Planning  Any  diversification  needs  consideration  of  environmental  impact.  

Ditto  

  1     Far  too  loose  &  open  to  abuse.    Disagree  –  CV  is  agricultural  area   Ditto     2     Chew  Moos  is  example  of  successful  diversification.    Great  increase  in  traffic  due  to  airport  expansion       4     Agree  to  ACVs.    Support  farming  diversification  and  tourism  in  support  of  businesses       6     Agree:  Farming  diversification  and  tourism       7     Agree  but  if  there  are  facilities  and  parking   NC     8     Agree:  Farming  diversification  and  tourism       11     CV  area  should  have  more  accommodation  for  tourists,  certainly  more  B&Ss  and  decent  hotel.    Perhaps  one  by  lake.    There  are  

good  places  to  eat  but  few  places  to  stay.      NC  

  12     Question  of  scale,  e.g.  local  cider  &  cheese  farm  is  too  big  in  scale   Would  have  to  comply  with  other  policies  

  14     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism       15     Support  farming  diversification  and  tourism  but  only  if  centred  close  to  main  farmhouse  and  farm  building  cluster.       Ditto     17     Disagree.    Depends  what  it  is.    No  to  farming  diversification  and  tourism   NC     18     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism       19     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism  as  long  as  it  doesn’t  impinge  adversely  on  the  character  of  the  area  or  the  quality  

of  life  of  residents  NC  

  20     Better  public  transport  would  help  bring  people  in  and  let  locals  support  neighbouring  attractions   NC  

  35     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism   √     36     Agree:    Farming  diversification,  would  support  tourism  if  infrastructure  more  suitable   √     37     Agree:    Farming  diversification   √     38     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism,  subject  to  suitability  for  the  area   √     39     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism   √     40     Agree:    Farming  diversification  and  tourism   √                                

BF4   26     Agree.   √  Community  Facilities  

14     Agree   √  

  15     Agree   √     17     Agree.       √     18     Agree:       √     20     Agree   √                                

BF5   20     Agree   A  CV  School   24     BF5    Shouldn’t  the  CVNP  support  the  establishment  by  the  school  of  a  development  plan  which  seeks  to  take  into  account  the  

anticipated  future  needs  of  the  school  and  interested  community  groups  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  best  use  of  the  site  and  the  facilities?    

Great  if  they  do  

  37     Disagree   NC                                

BF6   15     Agree   √  Chew  Magna  car  

park  24     Despite  the  usual  caveats  this  is  an  open  invitation  to  develop  car  parks  in  Chew  Magna.     NC  but  would  have  to  have  

regard  for  other  policies.                                

BF7   22     Should  be  off  road  park   A  Parking  -­‐  non  domestic  

23     Parking  a  problem  in  most  places   A  

  24     Who  is  making  the  requirement  for  on-­‐street  parking?  Is  it  the  developer  or  the  CVNP?  Why  no  mention  of  off-­‐street  parking?     Traffic  impact  assessment.  On  street  is  of  most  concern.  

  30     Encourage  &  support  safer  walking  &  cycle  routes   NC     33     Car  sharing  website  for  people  with  regular  commutes   NC     31     No  long  stay  car  parks   NC     17     On  street  parking  should  not  increase   A     38     Parking  needs  to  be  provided  as  there  is  little  or  no  public  transport   A     41     Encouragement  of  local  business  is  important.  The  provision  of  adequate  parking  is  important  BUT  should  also  ensure  that   A  

long  stay  workers  do  not  impact  on  local  shops  and  services.                                  

BF8   21     Power  –  30  second  or  less  ‘blips’                                                                                                          P   )  Power  &  Water   23     Not  a  problem                                                                                                 )  

  27     Low  water  pressure                                                                                                                                                                          W   )     29     Power  dips  and  low  water  pressure                                                                                                                  W   )     28     Power                                                                                                                                                                                                        P   )     33     Power  –  Occasionally                                                                                                                                                  P   )     34     Occasional                                                                                                                                                                                        P   )     31     Several  power  cuts                                                                                                                                                          P   )    Not  included  as  policy.            

Moved  to  Aspiration     4     Almost  daily                                                                                                                                                                                  P   )     5     Power  –  yes                                                                                                                                                                                  P   )     6     Power  –  yes                                                                                                                                                                                  P   )     7     Power  –  occasionally                                                                                                                                                  P   )     8     Power                                                                                                                                                                                                      P   )     18     Yes,  occasionally                                                                                                                                                                  P   )     20     Water,  occasionally                                                                                                                                                                          W   )     35     Power                                                                                                                                                                                                      P   )     36     Low  water  pressure  at  HB36                                                                                                                                          W   )     37     Agree,  Power  and  water                                                                                                                                      P              W   )     38     Power                                                                                                                                                                                                      P   )     39     Power                                                                                                                                                                                                      P   )     40     Power                                                                                                                                                                                                      P   )                                

BF9   21     Agree   )  Mobile  coverage   22     Agree.  Vital   )  

  26     Agree.   )     27     Agree   )     29     Agree   )     28     Agree   )     30     Agree   )     33     Agree   )     1     No  if  it  means  more  masts   )     4     Agree   )     5     Agree   )     6     Agree:    No  1  priority   )     7     Agree:    essential   )      Mostly  agree     8     Agree.      Build  new  phone  mast  now   )  

  12     No,  own  adequate   )     17     Agree   )     20     Agree   )     35     Agree   )     36     Agree   )     37     Agree   )     38     Agree.    Better  internet/phone  would  encourage  people  to  work  from  home   )     39     Agree   )     40     Agree   )                                

BF10   21     Agree.   )  Fibre     22     Agree.  Vital   )  

  24     Open-­‐ended  commitment  but  looks  for  a  mere  25mps.  Less  developed  parts  of  the  world  achieve  1G  up  and  down.      

In  keeping  with  PMP,  deemed  realistic.  

broadband   26     Agree.   )     27     Agree   )     29     Agree   )     28     Agree   )     30     Agree   )     33     Agree   )     4     Agree   )        Mostly  agree     5     Agree   )     6     Agree:    No  1  priority   )     7     Agree:  essential   )     8     Agree:    Truespeed  are  coming....   )     12     No:    own  adequate   )     17     Agree   )     20     Agree   )     35     Agree   )     36     Agree   )     37     Agree   )     38     Agree   )     38     Agree   )      Mostly  agree     40     Agree   )     41     Agree.  Particularly  broadband  which  is  currently  unreliable,  unpredictable  and  ludicrously  slow.  Would  not  state  a  target  of  

25Mbps  which  in  5  years  time  will  look  lame.  Broadband  is  a  basic  enabling  technology  for  business  and  entertainment.    )  

                             

A1   21     B&NES  do  a  reasonable  job  on  maintaining  footpaths,  where  landowners  allow  this.    CV  Lake  cycle  

path  22     Bristol  Water  should  pay  for  cycle  path    

  23     Yes  to  cycle  path.    PRoW  network  mostly  good       26     Not  Chew  Magna       27     Maintenance  of  existing  more  important,  more  pressure  on  landowners       30     Yes  to  cycle  path       32     Definitely  support.      Lake  hugely  underused  as  leisure  facility       34     Consideration  needed  for  existing  users,  e.g.  bird  watchers   any  scheme  would  have  to  be  

fully  checked  for  detrimental  environmental  impacts  

  31     Some  over  high  ground       2     As  footpath  not  cycleway  as  could  become  race  track       4     Agree       5     Agree       6     Agree       7     Agree       10     ”Imagine   if   the   lake  was  encircled  by  a  beautiful  walk/cycle   track"   -­‐  what  a  nightmare!  Large  parts  of  Chew  Valley  Lake  are  

designated   SSSIs   and   yet,   instead   of   protecting   them   and   their   natural   beauty,   you   seem   intent   on   opening   these   up   to  disturbance,  thereby  greatly  diminishing  their  value  to  wildlife.  Why?    

There  is  already  a  cyclepath  along  a  large  stretch  of  the  west  side  of  the  lake  but  most  cyclists  never  use  it,  preferring  to  cycle  along  the  road.    What  a  waste  of  effort  and  natural  resources  that  was.    

I  can  see  that  there  is  a  demand  for  greater  access  to  the  open  countryside  but  surely  this  should  not  be  to  the  detriment  of  sensitive  habitats,  like  those  at  the  lake.  There  is  plenty  of  more  robust  habitat  that  could  be  made  more  accessible  -­‐  how  about  encouraging  local  farmers  to  allow  greater  access  to  some  of  their  fields?  

any  scheme  would  have  to  be  fully  checked  for  detrimental  environmental  impacts  

  11     Lake  perimeter  footpath/cyclepath  good  idea,  but  cycle  path  can  only  work  if  it  is  kept  clear  (clean  for  cycling)   )     12     Yes  &  swimming  area   )     14     It  was  a  B&NES  adopted  project  in  2001.    Would  benefit  health/safety/business/families.      B&NES  does  excellent  work  on  

PRoWs  )  

  17     Disagree   )      Generally  agree     18     Agree   )     35     Agree   )     36     Agree  re  cycleway   )     39     Agree  re  cycleway   )     40     Agree  re  cycleway   )     41     Agree   )                                

A2   26     No   )  Business  &  

Economy  in  CV  27     Possible   )  

  29     Yes   )     28     Yes   )     2     No  but  Stoke  Inn  does  wonderful  job   )      Overall  -­‐  yes     6     Yes   )  

  8     Maybe   )     12     Yes   )     17     Disagree   )                                

A3   21     Occasionally.    Most  of  my  journeys  are  to  Wells  or  Bath,  so  26  applicable   )  Better  public  transport  

22     Occasionally.  Always  use  park  ride  but  go  there  by  car   )  

  23     Daily.    Not  badly  served.    Needs  smaller  buses.    Service  need  to  Bath   )  x     25     More  frequent  672  bus  service.    Drive  to  Bishopsworth  and  catch  bus   )     26     Occasionally.  Public  transport  room  for  improvement   )    If  CVNP  aspiration  would  

cover!     27     Occasionally.    Excellent  idea,  better  than  meandering  route  to  Bristol   )     30     Occasionally.   )     32     Leave  public  transport  as  is   )  x     34     No   )  x     31     Occasionally.    There  will  always  be  a  need  for  public  transport   )     2     Not  yet.    Is  there  economic  reason  for  increasing  public  transports?   )     4     No  don’t  use.    Inter  village  transport  to  local  facilities  for  those  that  don’t  drive.       )     5     No,  not  unless  frequent  enough  for  normal  business/working  hours   )     7     Is  non-­‐existent.    Dreadful  for  those  who  cannot  drive.    Wary  of  giving  it  up   )     11     Weekly  minibus  from  each  village  to  Dr/Dentist   )     12     Yes,  weekly   )     14     Weekly:  A37  to  connect  to  376.    Enhance  public  transport  if  possible   )     15     Occasionally.    Only  if  impact  on  existing  parking  in  key  villages,  e.g.  Chew  Magna  is  not  compromised  by  those  using  it.    Needs  

improving  if  it  is  to  be  better  used.  )  

  16     Yes,  Weekly,  but  only  in  addition  to  present  bus  service.      It  is  most  important  to  keep  present  bus  services   )        It  would  cover     17     Yes,  Weekly   )     18     Yes,  Daily  to  Bath,  Occasionally.    Need  property  daily  bus  service    many  work  in  Bath.as  well  as  Bristol            x  Bath!     19     Occasionally   )     20     Very  important  for  young  people  particularly.    Public  transport  insufficient,  mostly  inaccessible  in  East  Harptree.    Public  

transport  is  vital  )  

  35     Yes  to  27  and  28!   )     36     Yes,  Weekly   )     37     Yes,  Weekly   )     38     Public  transport  cannot  replace  the  car,  so  little  point  in  using  it        x     24     Transport  needs  to  be  available  and  affordable   )                                

A4   21     No  strong  views.    Roadside  parking  often  acts  as  traffic  calming   )  Traffic  calming   22     Unnecessary.    No  one  obeys  20  mph   x  

  23     Where  needed   )  

  26     Yes,  In  some  cases.  Dangerous  junction  at  junction  of  Denny  Lane  onto  50mph  limit   )     27     Traffic  speeds  need  to  be  kept  in  check  but  calming  urbanises.    Street  onto  A368  at  Ubley,  junction  between  C  Martin  &  W  

Harptree  )  

  30     Yes  to  traffic  calming   )     32     Would  like  speed  camera  in  village.    Several  accidents  at  Fairash   )     34     Support  generally  but  not  excessive  road  furniture.    Crossroads  by  chicken  shed  and  up  past  Wellsway   )     31     Denny  Lane,  Walley  Court   )     2     Not  if  it  means  humps   )        Generally  as  these  are  very                                                                        

specific,  the  Aspiration  has        been  removed  &  ought  to  be  PC  issues  

  3     Traffic  calming-­‐I  can  not  see  a  reference  to  this.  If  there  will  be  an  increased  amount  of  traffic  in  the  Chew  Valley  it  will  essential  that  in  certain  critical  points  that  traffic  calming  schemes  are  introduced.  I  think  this  is  particularly  relevant  near  to  schools  but  generally  our  villages  will  need  more  traffic  calming  if  there  is  going  to  be  more  traffic-­‐which  must  follow  if  there  is  going  to  be  more  development.  I  live  in  East  Harptree  and  this  is  particularly  relevant  here.  For  reasons  which  I  am  covering  in  an  email  to  Julie  O’Rourke  I  think  that  a  traffic  calming  scheme  needs  to  be  introduced  at  the  bottom  of  Church  Lane  close  to  the  School.  That  is  my  parochial  view  but    I  suspect  there  will  be  other  examples  of  the  need  to  reduce  the  speed  at  which  drivers  travel  through  the  Chew  Valley  villages  and  particularly  close  to  schools.  

)  

  5     Support.    Corner  of  B3130  by  Chew  reservoir   )     6     Already  have  20mph.    A37  Pensford  Hill   )     7     Yes  but  only  if  well  designed,  not  all  are.    Plethora  of  signs  is  horrid.    Bristol  Road  –  Pilgrims  Way   )     8     No   )     12     Unnecessary  but  something  to  discourage  massive  long  traffic  on  A368   )     14     In  some  locations.    A37/B3130,  A368/road  from  Chew  Stoke   )     17     Squire  Lane,  Ubley  on  to  A368   )     19     Yes   )     20     Crossroads  at  East  Harptree  more  dangerous  since  installation  of  traffic  calming   )     37     Yes   )     40     Yes   )     41     Think  the  widespread  inconsistent  use  of  20mph  is  just  plain  irritating.  The  real  problem  is  enforcement  of  the  30mph  limits.  

Traffic  calming  would  help.    )  

                             

A5   21     Yes.  Don’t  commute  &  always  car  share  where  poss.   )  Car  sharing  scheme  

23     If  needed   )  

  26     Yes   )     27     Could  work  for  those  who  would  use  it   )     29     Yes   )     28     Yes   )    Generally  felt  that  internet  

etc.  had  available  schemes.    Pensioners  can  do  via  parish  notice  board  

  30     Yes   )  

  34     Support  in  principle   )     31     Possible   )     5     No   )     6     Yes   )     8     No       11     Car  sharing  scheme  good  idea  but  those  with  most  need  may  not  have  access  to  a  website.    Younger  people  sharing  journeys  

would  be  good  idea.  )  

  12     Yes   )     15     Discouragement  of  development  in  flood  areas       17      May  be  difficult  to  organise       19     Yes   )     20     Yes   )     35     Yes   )     36     Yes   )     38     Yes   )     39     Yes   )     40     Yes   )  

   

                             

Q33   21     Housing  density   Placemaking  Plan  has  policy  for  this.  

Are  there  any     23     Issue  with  ex  poultry  farm  at  Fairash   Not  NP  issue  other  issues     26     B&NES  must  maintain  opposition  to  Govt  fracking   Placemaking  Plan  and  NPPF  

policies  on  this.  important  to   27     Part  of  Blagdon  Lake  in  CVNP,  so  should  refer  to  ‘lakes’  but  use  CV  lake  as  main  example   A.   Corrected  

you   30     Fracking  would  devastate  the  area  and  should  be  prevented   B&NES  PMP  has  strong  policies.     34     Yes,  expansion  of  airport  with  increase  in  light  pollution.  Extension  to  businesses  outside  CVNP  but  with  visual  impact  on  it.    

Increasing  use  of  marquees  –  should  be  temporary.    Bad  planning  decisions  leading  to  allowance  of  others.      Dismissive  attitude  of  B&NES  towards  PCs,  especially  in  CVNP  area..      Serious  consideration  of  swimming  pool  in  CVNP.        Any  development  within  or  adjacent  to  AONB  to  be  agreed  by  committee  not  by  single  officer  and  should  have  sufficient  consultation  period  

NC    NC  Not  something  the  NP  can  change.  

  31     Need  to  look  after  older  residents   NC     1     Maintain  roads,  improve  drainage  systems,  protect  rural  environment   NC     2     HDE12:    Sycamore  in  Rectory  field,  Chew  Stoke  should  be  noted  as  Veteran  Tree   Check  with  PC         In  conjunction  with  policies  HDE2  &  HDE7  proposals  for  new  development  should  consider  likely  impact  in  community  

infrastructure,  e.g.  schools  This  is  taken  into  account  with  a  planning  application,  but  not  something  that  can  be  controlled  via  NP  

  3     If  it  is  a  given  that  there  has  to  be  more  housing  in  the  Chew  Valley  it  is  critical  that  in  order  to  sustain  our  communities  there  is  also  adequate  provision  for  other  facilities-­‐schools,  village  halls,  churches,  shops  etc  etc.  I  know  education  is  not  within  the  ambit  of  the  CVNP  but  equally  there  is  a  limited  amount  of  land  that  can  be  developed  and  that  could  be  in  competition  with  the  requirement  for  additional  facilities  such  as  schools.  All  in  all  the  CVNP  needs  at  least  to  give  a  nod  to  the  wider  strategic  plan  and  any  development  for  housing  has  to  be  within  the  context  of  that  wider  plan  and  some  development  should  not  be  permitted  if  the  land  in  question  is  more  appropriately  developed  to  provide  say  for  a  school  on  the  land  in  question.  At  the  moment  the  CVNP  seems  to  sit  in  isolation  of  the  wider  strategic  plan  and  that  needs  to  rectified.    

NC  

  7     Swimming  pool  at  Leisure  Centre,  footpath  around  lake       12     We  have  2  lakes  but  no  open  air  swimming  facilities   NC     18     Chew  Valley  needs  public  swimming  pool  for  schools  and  clubs  and  public  at  non-­‐school  times   Aspiration     20     Swimming  pool   Aspiration     36     Appalling  condition  of  roads   Not  a  planning  issue     37     Poor  road  condition       Not  a  planning  issue     41     I  should  like  to  see  more  protection  of  wildlife  and  in  particular  an  aspiration  to  improve  our  species  diversity  and,  particularly,  

numbers  where  threatened.    We  live  in  an  area  where  we  should  be  more  aware  and  pro-­‐active.  As  an  example  the  planting  of  trees.  We  lost  our  elms  which  were  so  plentiful  in  the  valley  40  years  ago.  We  are  now  losing  other  species  such  as  ash  and  chestnut.  Likewise  the  serious  reduction  in  bird  numbers.  We  need  to  be  more  positive  about  what  we  want  to  do  and  be  more  responsible  because  the  losses  are  happening  in  our  patch  and  on  our  watch.    The  CVNP  mentions  a  swimming  pool.  We  need  other  facilities  to  support  leisure  activities.  How  about  a  football  clubhouse  or  two;  or  maybe  an  athletic  field/track;  or  a  cycle  sport  venue?    Further  to  the  above  I  should  like  to  see  the  CVNP  aspire  to  provide  more  facilities  for  young  people.    I  think  a  big  hole  in  the  plan  is  movement  of  people  by  other  than  cars.    

NC    NC        NC    Not  a  planning  issue  Not  a  planning  issue  

Safe  Routes  to  School  was  once  a  campaign  but  seems  to  have  faded  away.    The  Chew  Lake  cycle  route  would  be  wonderful  as  a  leisure  facility.  BUT  even  more  useful  would  be  footpaths  and  cycle  ways  safe  from  traffic  (not  just  a  few  Sustrans  signposts  sending  one  up  and  down  exhausting  byways!)  Compared  to  the  continent  we  are  philistines  when  it  comes  to  walk/cycle  ways.  For  example,  go  behind  hedges  to  create  safe  routes  as  they  do  in  Germany  &  elsewhere.  

Still  exists  NC  

   

                             

Other  comments  

22     Must  have  2/3  bed  houses  in  every  development,  even  small  ones   NC  

  29     In  planning  for  the  future  we  need  to  reflect  on  our  experience  of  the  past.  At  the  turn  of  the  20th  century  places  like  Totterdown  and  Knowle  in  Bristol  were  rural,  mainly  fields.    Whitchurch  was  a  small  village  ‘miles’  from  Bristol.    Admittedly  there  was  no  planning  control  then  but  there  has  been  since  the  1950s  -­‐  for  over  75  years  -­‐  and  now  Whitchurch  is  part  of  Bristol  and  still  spreading  fast  and  now  the  density  of  housing  in  Bristol  at  this  time  is  high.    

The  demand  for  housing  generally  over  the  last  100  years  will  be  nothing  in  comparison  to  the  current  and  burgeoning  demand  that  is  confronting  us  now  and  over  the  next  100  years.      We  have  to  plan  for  the  next  100  years;  we  owe  it  to  future  generations.    

What  are  we  going  to  do  to  stop  North  East  Somerset  being  subsumed  in  the  same  way  as  Bristol  has  done  with  its  surrounding  villages?    We  have  to  accept  and  convince  our  local  authority  that  there  needs  to  be  a  limit  to  how  much  small  settlements  can  take  in  the  way  of  development  without  losing  their  character  and  without  damaging  the  rural  landscape  surrounding  them.      Perhaps  there  should  be  a  plan  for  key  settlements  to  expand  but  define  the  extent  of  that  expansion  in  advance.    There  has  to  be  a  plan,  it  can't  just  be  allowed  evolve,  to  spread  and  sprawl.    Like  obesity,  it's  not  healthy  for  our  environment.  

NC  

  42     I  do  agree  with  your  with  your  aims  in  the  CVNP  Policy  Options.  However  I  do  have  a  concern.  The  aim  of  getting  more  business  in  the  Chew  Valley  is  a  grand  one.  After  reading  the  Community  Consultation  I  feel  that  any  business  might  think  twice  before  coming  to  the  Chew  Valley.  There  are  a  good  number  of  policies  in  the  plan  in  regard  to  what  businesses  should  comply  with  before  setting  up.  I  might  be  wrong  but  I  feel  there  is  not  much  to  encourage  a  business  to  come  to  the  Chew  Valley  in  the  policy.  What  can  we  offer  them?  Not  just  policy  restrictions.  

NC.  Business  policies  BF1,2,3,4  are  around  change  of  use  for  existing  businesses.    Beyond  that  the  policies  require  provision  of  parking  and  broadband  for  new  businesses.  

  24     There  is  a  pattern  where  the  NP  declares  support  for  proposals,  (sometimes  ‘any  proposal’),  which  offer  something  deemed  desirable.  Despite  caveats,  this  could  have  unintended  consequence.  It  would  be  more  likely  to  achieve  the  intended  aims  if  the  policy  stated  that  the  desirable  outcome  was  a  precondition  for  support  thereby  leaving  all  other  issues  for  discussion  and  a  decision  to  approve  or  reject  open  based  on  all  the  issues  not  just  one.  SUSTAINABILITY  for  this  neighbourhood  (amongst  all  others)  to  have  a  future  it  needs  to  be  sustainable  and  as  we  all  now  know  this  comprises  elements  of  environmental  economic  and  social  sustainability.    To  be  environmentally  sustainable:    1.   All  new  buildings  need  to  be  constructed  to  a  standard  far  beyond  the  bare  legal  minimum  represented  by  the  Building  

Regulations.  Although  the  national  target  for  homes  to  be  ‘Zero  Carbon’  from  2016  has  been  dropped,  there  is  no  reason  the  CVNP  should  not  promote  its  own  target.  As  the  Code  for  Sustainable  Homes  has  been  abandoned  it  makes  sense  to  adopt  the  Passivhaus  standard  which  has  a  strong  scientific  base,  has  been  widely  adopted  across  Europe  and  beyond,  has  been  shown  to  work,  and,  applies  to  all  building  types  not  just  houses.  (There  are  other  measures  currently  in  use  in  Europe,  USA  and  elsewhere,  but  Passivhaus  is  the  only  one  with  a  wide  base  and  a  degree  of  expertise  established  in  this  country).    

2.   Our  use  of  energy  needs  to  be  steered  away  from  fossil  fuels  and  to  renewables.  Fracking  is  environmentally  damaging  and  moves  energy  production  in  exactly  the  opposite  direction  to  that  which  is  needed.  Solar  farms  would  be  better  placed  on  the  roofs  of  sheds,  new  and  existing,  rather  than  covering  fields.  All  new  agricultural  industrial  and  commercial  buildings  should  be  fitted  with  integrated  solar  photo-­‐voltaic  panels  (PVs).  Existing  buildings  of  the  same  should  be  retrofitted  with  PVs..    

3.   The  impact  of  the  movement  of  people  and  goods  must  be  constrained.  Personal  transport  has  been  getting  financially  cheaper  while  environmentally  more  costly.    

NC  

To  be  socially  sustainable:    1.   Housing,  for  purchase  and  rent,  needs  to  be  provided  so  that  local  people  can  afford  to  live  in  the  area.  Rented  property  

needs  to  remain  in  the  rented  sector.  A  positive  programme  identifying  potential  sites  with  social  landlord  partners  should  be  undertaken.    

To  be  economically  sustainable:    1.   Jobs  which  pay  need  to  be  available  for  local  people  in  the  local  area.    2.   Transport  needs  to  be  available  and  affordable    3.   Energy  needs  to  be  available  and  affordable    

  43    

 

Drainage  in  Policies  reviewed.  

 

postcodes

POSTCODE NUMBER OF REPLIES

Not Given 6

BS39 5 3

BS40 6 18

BS40 8 15

BS41 8 1

Respondants by Postcodes

0

5

9

14

18

Not Given BS39 5 BS40 6 BS40 8 BS41 8

1

1518

36

Respondants Postcodes

2%

35%

42%

7%14%

Not GivenBS39 5BS40 6BS40 8BS41 8

The Chew Valley Neighbourhood Plan summer 2015 community consultation on policy options - Results

These results are the amalgamated result of the paper forms and email responses (34), the online survey monkey forms (9). Note 3 of the email responses were on specific issues. TOTAL RESPONSES 43

Q1 - Do you broadly agree with

ANSWER NUMBER

Blank 6

Not Sure 1

Yes 36

No 0

Broadly agree with policies?

0

10

20

30

40

No Blank Not Sure Yes

36

16

0

GENERAL

�1

Q2 - Which policies do you feel

ANSWER

Blank 10

All 7

HDE1 13

HDE2 16

HDE3 16

HDE4 12

HDE5 9

HDE6 8

HDE7 6

HDE8 5

HDE9 5

HDE10 5

HDE11 8

HDE12 7

HDE13 11

HDE14 8

HDE15 11

BF2 3

BF4 7

BF5 5

BF6 1

BF9 1

BF10 4

Most agreed with policies (NB: - Could indicate more than one)

0

4

8

12

16

Blank All HDE1 HDE2 HDE3 HDE4 HDE5 HDE6 HDE7 HDE8 HDE9 HDE10HDE11HDE12HDE13HDE14HDE15 BF2 BF4 BF5 BF6 BF9 BF10

4

11

5

7

3

11

8

11

78

5556

89

12

1616

13

7

10

*002: dark sky policy very important and special

�2

Q3 - Which policies do you feel you most strongly disagree

ANSWER

Blank/none 35

All 0

HDE1 0

HDE2 2

HDE3 0

HDE4 0

HDE5 3

HDE6 3

HDE8 1

HDE10 1

HDE15 0

BF3* 3

a1 1

a5 1

Most disagreed with policies (NB: - Could indicate more than one)

0

10

20

30

40

Blank/none All HDE1 HDE2 HDE3 HDE4 HDE5 HDE6 HDE8 HDE10 HDE15 BF3* a1 a5

1130113300200

35

*001: too loose - open to abuse

�3

Q4 - Rural Landscape character (HDE1):

Do you have any different ideas ?

Blank 10

No 27

Yes 6

HDE1

0

8

15

23

30

Blank No Yes

6

27

10

Q5 - Settlement build character (HDE2)

Do you have any different ideas ?

Blank 8

No 22

Yes 13

HDE2

0

6

11

17

22

Blank No Yes

13

22

8

Q6 - Important Views (HDE3)

Do you have any different ideas ?

Blank 13

No 28

Yes 2

HDE3

0

8

15

23

30

Blank No Yes

2

28

13

002: Do not build more “look alike” properties. Contemporary ONE-OFFs are often attractive.

007: Design/style might be inhibited, don’t want country pastiche, good design is key.

005: Working villages, not chocolate boxes, added to in various styles for 100s of years, modern should be allowed.

003: Include village design statements where done as SPDs

0011: mixed style developments, not uniform, i.e.: stone and rendered, mixed roof line and frontages.

HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT

0013: Detailed attachment re NPPF

0013: mDetailed attachment re NPPF0012: Room for eco-houses

0022: include older properties - no new doors etc

0021: take account of ash dieback

0021: not sure from graphics

0023: all views

0025: much of the landscape is and always has been man made, so we ought to let it evolve

0025: we ought to let it evolve

0025: much of the landscape is and always has been man made, so we ought to let it evolve

0030: need policy on fracking as it would effect landsc, traffic and views

0030: need to highlight imp of sust building and low energy use

0034: ensure we address trees and hedgerows

0034: ensure we address trees and hedgerows

0033: address colours of commercial units and agricultural buildings

0031: dont always want traditional, - move towards present/modern

0034: all views in and out are important x-parish and x-authority communication

�4

Q7 - Important landscape views (HDE3 /4)

Do you have any ideas ?

Blank 13

No 0

Yes 30

HDE3/4

0

8

15

23

30

Blank No Yes

30

0

13

002: View from Chew Magna to Chew Stoke (of Mendips) by road is delightful.

008: Chew Valley Lake

004: Views with either Lake, Compton martin Combe & hills to either side

001: Those in the village character assessments, esp E.Harptree

006: Norton lane looking to the lake (over Chew M)007: Top of School lane (shore ditch), views from Breach Hill Lane, Views of the Lake

005: Horizons and skylines

011: Skyline

Q8 - Community Renewables (HDE6)

desire for community led?

Blank/maybe 12

No 8

Yes 23

HDE6

0

6

12

18

24

Blank/maybe No Yes

23

812

006: Already investing!!005: Re HDE6, encourage renovations of older buildings.002: Fear of field covered in solar panels001: Solar panels, farms and Wind farms ugly, plus pylons!

Q9 - Parking - domestic (HDE8)

Do you have other ideas?

Blank 13

No 25

Yes 5

HDE8

0

8

15

23

30

Blank No Yes

5

25

13

001: Legislate to make people use garages004: Strongly agree011: Not integral garages.

0013: hard to pin point, some will get missed

0012: mendips to lake

0021:dundry south, monarchs way north, smith hill to green down

0021: good for householders to decide

0022: impossible to manage

0020: lake from e.harp and mendips

0017: lake from ubley south

0019: in and around hinton Blewett

0014: nempnet sw over blagdon, prospect style, dumpers stone bridge up the river chew

0020: but do not let them convert the garage!

0021: proportion to size, 2 is too few for larger 4 bed properties

0026: knowl hill over lake, norton lane to lake

0027: depends on scale!

0027: mendip scarp @ ubley and CM. HB. south from breach hill and ??

0030: need low carbon renewables

0030: encorage cycling, walking and car sharing

0028: top of EH, above CMtn, Prosp Stile

0029: entire skyline - in and out!

0031:knowl hill, ubley coombe, pagans hill, top of Harptree hill, c.martin pond, prospect stile, EH top of village

0032: the lakes and the hills

0033:all!!0034:aonb/ubley/blagdon lake/up to airport

0031: yes in future as technology advances

032: more Wind turbines

0033: NO Solar panels, farms or Windturbines

034: general support BUT caveats! Impact/scale/noise etc 0041: Strongly support. But would also oppose wind turbines. Keen on community systems shared by multiple households.

�5

Q10 - Protection of green spaces (HDE11)

Do you have other ideas?

Blank 20

No 22

Yes 1

HDE11

0

8

15

23

30

Blank No Yes

1

2220010: This is so important that the idea of having a cycleway through SSSI is a nightmare!

002: Rectory Field, Chew Stoke

002: Chew Stoke has done their part

001 and 20:26 27 29 Quality 2 and 3 bedroomed at market rate

Q11 - What type of affordable housing would you like to see?

TYPE NUMBER OF REPLIES

Blank 5

Social 5

Cheaper market 22

Other 8

None 3

type of affordable

7%

19%

51%

12%

12%

BlankSocialCheaper marketOtherNone

005: Help to buy, for the young

007: No more needed in Chew Stoke

006: All needed - siting critical

004: Enable the young to stay in the valley

009: Cheaper, 1/2 bed, £100-150k, we need more than family homes

011: 2/3 family homes, 2/3 bungalows,

012: Quality 2 bed

0017: local connection

0027: warden controlled for elderly

0028: downsizing bungalows 0041: Housing suitable for younger families at economic price.

�6

002 and 21: Of a quality build

Q12 - Downsizing type?

TYPE NUMBER OF REPLIES

Not Relevant 28

House with less bedrooms 10

Bungalow 7

Flat 1

Other 1

Prefered downsize property type (NB: - Could indicate more than one)

5%5%

37%53%

House with less bedroomsBungalowFlatOther

006: annexe with family

007: Not in Chew Stoke

Q13 - Sheltered housing

TYPE NUMBER OF REPLIES

Not Relevant 31

Retirement Village 6

Warden controlled 3

Flat 0

Small group, warden linked 3

sheltered type

72%

7%

7%

14%

Retirement VillageWarden controlledFlatSmall group, warden linkedNot Relevant

011: Chew Magna or West Harptree

0041: Would go to an existing complex elsewhere.

002: Not needed for myself, but it is important

0020: 2/3 bed, parking, near facilities, small gdn. 0041: Small (eg. 2 bed) accessible within reach of village amenities.

�7

Q14 - Renewable/Low carbon view (HDE6)

replies

Blank 17

+ve 20

-ve 3

mixed 3

HDE6

0

5

10

15

20

Blank +ve -ve mixed

33

2017

002: as long as not unsightly, so probably only heat pumps. Not solar panels on roofs.

004: As long as adhere to HDE1 and 2!

001: all ugly. reduce demand. use nuclear.

Answers suggest….

CHP 6

Solar 9

Bio 3

Anaerobic for Local use 2

Water 2

Wind 4

All 3007: Solar if suitable screened site

006: Improve insulation

001: Keep the land for agriculture

Q15 - Acceptable community renewables-1

replies

Blank 26

None Acceptable 2

Answered, see chart 15

35%

5%60%

BlankNone AcceptableAnswered, see chart012: Solar for village halls

0013: see letter

027: not at expense of the views - so siting must be done carefully, Not turbines

026 small to medium scale025 solar and wind - plus look at others

�8

Q16 - Specific habitats/species

are you aware of any?

Blank 13

yes 21

no 9

0

HDE13/14

0

6

11

17

22

Blank yes no

9

21

13Species: Bats, CMn Coombe, Willow, Bottom, Lake, CS Rectory field, owns at lake, wild fowl on lake

Species: Orchids, orchids at breach hill, , CMn Woods, greenacres farm wild flower meadow

BUSINESS AND FACILITIES

Q17 - BF1 - retaining small businesses

do you have other ideas?

Blank 15

no 27

yes 1

BF1

0

8

15

23

30

Blank no yes

1

27

15

Species: Bats, Bats - east Harp, Owls, DormiceKingfishers, Bee Orchids.

Old orchards in and surrounding villages, bats, orchids in nearby woods, Bath Asparagus adjacent LItton Lakes and Herb Paris in Harptree Coombe.

we are losing our swallows, house martins and swifts

0015: see extra sheet: NDP will not support any dev in priority habitats and SNCIs - pls read sheet

�9

Q18 - BF2 - protecting facilities

do you have other ideas?

Blank 25

no 16

yes 2

BF2

0

8

15

23

30

Blank no yes

2

16

25

Q18 - would you like to see some ACVs

do you have other ideas?

Blank 13

no 8

yes 17

some 4

unclear 1

create some ACVs

0

5

9

14

18

Blank no yes someunclear

14

17

8

13

007: Need to define significant

005 and 23: On a case by case basis

Q19 - BF3 - farm diversification

would you support it?

Blank 11

yes 23

no 1

maybe 2

BF3

0

8

15

23

30

Blank yes no

1

23

11

002: Chew Moo is a wonderful example!

001: Agricultural area, needs more support to keep agricultural.

021: Not sure what these are??

027: And community ownership worth considering

026: General stores, pubs and POs

0028: shops, Pos and pubs

�10

Q20- BF3 /A2 - Encourage tourism

would you support it?

Blank 11

yes 25

no 4

y/n 3

BF3

0

8

15

23

30

Blank yes no y/n

34

25

11

011: More accommodation, B+Bs, decent hotel

002: if traffic isn't an issue

007: only if facilities and parking

Q21 - BF7 Parking non-domestic

Do you have other ideas?

Blank 16

No 25

Yes 2

BF7

0

8

15

23

30

Blank No Yes

2

25

16

001: Legislate to make people use garages004: Strongly agree011: Not integral garages.

021: but only to a point - not Cheddar!!

019: as long as no adv effect on residents

I agree, but in central Chew Magna the only way foreward I can see is to build new car park centre Chew Magna under existing car park

car parks instead of parking in the road Chew Magna a problem traffic flow difficult and not enough car parking spacesm

0030: cycle and walk

�11

004: Almost daily

Q22 - Power outages - BF8

TYPE NUMBER OF REPLIES

Blank 10

no 10

power 18

water 5

outages

23%

12%

42%

23%

nopowerwaterBlank

Q23 - BF9 Support faster connectivity

for internet and mobile

Blank 11

yes 31

no 1

BF9&10

0

10

20

30

40

Blank yes no

1

31

11

001: Legislate to make people use garages004: Strongly agree011: Not integral garages. 0041: Particularly broadband which is currently unreliable, unpredictable and ludicrously slow. Would not state a target of 25Mbps which in 5 years time will look lame. Broadband is a basic enabling technology for business and entertainment.

027: Low water pressure is the norm - not the exception

�12

ASPIRATIONS

Q24 - A1 Support perimeter path

Blank 11

yes 29

no 2

As footpath Only 1

A1

0

8

15

23

30

Blank yes noAs footpath Only

12

29

11

Q25 - A1 are there any other paths

to enhance

Blank 24

yes 7

no 10

maybe 2

A1

0

8

15

23

30

Blank yes no maybe

210

7

24

Q26 - Would you use a link bus?

Blank 22

yes 10

no 10

maybe 1

A3

0

8

15

23

30

Blank yes no maybe

11010

22Yes- frequency

Daily 2

Weekly 5

Occasionally 14

027: its more about maintaining existing and working with land owners 0041: I think a big hole in the plan is movement of people by other than cars. Safe Routes to School was once a campaign but seems to have faded away. The Chew Lake cycle route would be wonderful as a leisure facility. BUT even more useful would be footpaths and cycle ways safe from traffic (not just a few Sustrans signposts sending one up and down exhausting byways!) Compared to the continent we are philistines when it comes to walk/cycle ways. For example, go behind hedges to create safe routes as they do in Germany & elsewhere.

027: an excellent idea - better than meandering!!

�13

Q27 - Keep buses as they are

Blank 9

yes 16

no 17

maybe 1

A3

0

5

9

14

18

Blank yes no maybe

1

1716

9

Q28 - Get rid of the buses

Blank 22

yes 1

no 19

maybe 1

A3

0

8

15

23

30

Blank yes no maybe

1

19

1

22

Q29 - Would you use a business hub

Blank 8

yes 8

no 21

maybe 6

A2

0

6

11

17

22

Blank yes no maybe

6

21

88

Q30 - Do you support traffic calming

Blank 21

yes 13

no 8

maybe 1

A2

0

8

15

23

30

Blank yes no maybe

18

13

21

018: to Bath!!

018:yes but 20mph is a bit too slow!020:unnecc in some areas014 026: in some areas

023 but only where needed

027: keep speeds down - but too much tc urbanises the villages 0041: Think the widespread inconsistent use of 20mph is just plain irritating. The real problem is enforcement of the 30mph limits. Traffic calming would help.

�14

Q31 - Do you know any dangerous junctions

Blank 23

yes 14

no 6

A2

0

6

12

18

24

Blank yes no

6

14

23004: highfield lane/yew tree lane; harptree hill with A368

007: bristol rd/pilgrims way

005: b3130/by Chew Magna reservoir

006: Pensford hill

Q32 - Would you support car sharing

Blank 19

yes 16

no 8

A2

0

5

10

15

20

Blank yes no

8

1619

013: Fair ash farm

018: top cross /pagans hill

020:xroads at E.H since traffic calming!

017: squire lane to a368 - ubley

017: hard to organise

014: a37/b3130 a368/chew stoke road

023 most !

026: Denny lane to wally Rd - 50mph!!

0041: Top of Battle Lane junction with High St, CM.Bottom of Wellsway (Harptree Hill) junction with A368 Winford Road junction with A38.

027: ubley - the street to a368, junta between CM and WH

027: not for me - but a sensible idea

�15

Q33 - Other issues

Blank 14

no 5

consider school places 1

swimming pool at leisure centre 2

swimming at lake 2

roads and drainage 1

discourage devt in or near flood areas 1

add veteran trees 1

housing density and guidance on WHERE built 1

fairash farm needs something doing 1

need firm opposition to fracking 2

hde14a - blagdon lake - part is in the CVNP area- so refer more generally to “the water” not “the lake” 1

Couldn't add specific housing, I think it is important to have affordable housing for the youth of the area as they want to become independant

1

the cycleway around the lake as it is at present is rarely used by cyclists who persist in using the road. They say thorns from the hedges destroy their tyres. I see this as a failure and a once beautiful grass verge now concreted over. The route follows the road with little view of the lake so doesn't even make a good walking path. I would love more walking paths locally, just very narrow modest paths, but in beautiful places, not between a hedge and a fast road. Also, relating to your question 4 above: I have no need for social housing, yet another set of flats somewhere for our elderly to enable them to stay in Chew Magna should I feel be considered.

1

There is already a cycle path which is unused by cyclist who prefer to hold up traffic by cycling sometimes 2 - 4 abreast - don't waste more money on cyclisst give a footpath to pedestrians instead. Which would give a safe place for locals to walk instead of encouraging swarms of cyclists from outside the area

1

Q2 doesn't allow me to specify anything. 1

In Policy HDE14 I would include the River Chew as well as Chew Valley lake. In Policy HDE 15 I suggest formally stating the intention never to permit street lighting as the phrase 'during operational hours' could mean all night for a street. I would have preferred the opportunity to comment on each policy individually - i am concerned that you will not get an accurate picture of residents' feedback as the survey misses out some policies.

1

I should like to see more protection of wildlife and in particular an aspiration to improve our species diversity and, particularly, numbers where threatened. We live in an area where we should be more aware and pro-active. As an example the planting of trees. We lost our elms which were so plentiful in the valley 40 years ago. We are now losing other species such as ash and chestnut. Likewise the serious reduction in bird numbers. We need to be more positive about what we want to do and be more responsible because the losses are happening in our patch and on our watch.

The CVNP mentions a swimming pool. We need other facilities to support leisure activities. How about a football clubhouse or two; or maybe an athletic field/track; or a cycle sport venue?

Further to the above I should like to see the CVNP aspire to provide more facilities for young people.

I think a big hole in the plan is movement of people by other than cars. Safe Routes to School was once a campaign but seems to have faded away. The Chew Lake cycle route would be wonderful as a leisure facility. BUT even more useful would be footpaths and cycle ways safe from traffic (not just a few Sustrans signposts sending one up and down exhausting byways!) Compared to the continent we are philistines when it comes to walk/cycle ways. For example, go behind hedges to create safe routes as they do in Germany & elsewhere.

1

A4 Printed sumbission fro Chew Valley Flood Forum - see Response document.

002: Sycamore in rectory Field

extra comment - thank you!!

�16