Cllr. Bigg declared an interest as she undertook communication work for the trustees and was largely responsible for the Linden Home exhibition. She is also Chairperson of CPRE who may be asked for their input into the plans. Cllr. Bigg left the meeting and did not return.

Cllr. Clements declared an interest in that he lived close to the development site. The Clerk stated that he had spoken with NSC (Mr. Nicholson) who stated that as the development was of a major nature and impacted on the Village as a whole then the personal interest element could be set aside.

Cllr. Irving mentioned that whilst a member of the Parochial Church Council she has not been involved in any discussions relating to Brook House s this was being dealt with by trustees.

Public Participation – Mr. Bartlett made a comment that NSC will not proceed until a full drainage analysis of the plot has been undertaken. He was pleased that parking has been brought forward as an issue. Also liked the idea that of a design similar to the Alburys.

Planning Applications

For planning applications and comments see attached sheet and letter

There being no other business the meeting was declared closed at 21.25 hours.

Mr. D W Glynn
Chairman
                                                           ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Letter to North Somerset Council

Our Ref:
Your Ref:

North Somerset Council
Development & Environment Directorate.
Somerset House
Oxford Street
Weston-Super-Mare
North Somerset

21 June 2006

Dear Mr. Bowering

Planning applications: 06/P/1263/CA & 06/P/1338/F.
Brook House, Silver Street, Wrington.

The Parish Council objects to the above applications on the following grounds:

Wall- this is the gateway to the Village and being within the Conservation Area we can see no merit in it being reduced in height or moved. Comments contained within our Parish Plan survey indicate that Parishioners place importance on the natural stone walls as being a feature and distinctive characteristic of the Village. It is also perceived that reducing the height and moving the wall in line with th proposed access to the site will in fact increase speed levels rather than reduce them. If the wall is moved and rebuilt then a condition must be set that natural local stone is used and not reconstituted materials.

Access- the plan to narrow the existing road to 5 metres does not appear to have taken into account the needs of an adjoining farm.There is a need for HGV's to access the farm and the width restriction will make this extremely difficult. The proposed new entry point for Brook House is also considered to be in the wrong location being on a blind access point. If Brook House is to be retained then the access should be routed through the development site.

Footpath- any internal footpath should be extended through the whole site and then link up with the existing footpath in Silver Street. This would have to be achieved by a pedestrian parapet over the small bridge in Silver Street and could be included in the Section 106 agreement.

Traffic- the road system around the Village are near capacity and the plan does not give sufficient thought to safety issues.The proposed moving of the wall will in theory straighten out Silver Street and enable traffic travelling along it to increase speed rather than to slow it. The wall in its existing location provides a natural traffic calming measure.

Drainage- the area is designated by the Environment Agency as a flood risk and from local knowledge the Council is aware that Brook House has been subject to flooding. Permeable hard surfaces should be a condition of any building agreement. There are also concerns over foul sewage and whether the existing system is able to cope with the additional housing. Problems have been experienced in the past in inclement weather conditions. Is a drainage analysis to be undertaken prior to any development?

Trees/vegetation- retention of more of the peripheral existing trees/vegetation should be considered. The scheme put forward is unimaginative.

Development proposals- it is considered that the scheme as submitted is too intensive and more suited to a town/city than a Conservation area in a rural loction. The design of the houses give the appearance of "pattern-book" and does not take into account the location and existing amenity value that the site affords. One suggestion made was that affordable housing could be set into the site in some way or as an alternative a contribution made towards a future scheme. Energy effeciency and water use could feature more strongly in the scheme in terms of sustainable development.

Lighting- if development does go forward then a scheme must be sympathetic with the existing Village scheme. However it would be expected that the lights would be immediately taken over by NSC and not within the Parish funded scheme.

It is accepted that development of this site is probably inevitable but the scheme as submitted is unimaginative and not in keeping with the Conservation area and the perceived environment. The Council would wish to be involved in any discussions relating to Section 106 agreements.

Yours faithfully

Terry Yearsley
Clerk to the Council
38 Park Road
Congresbury
BRISTOL
BS49 5HN

Tel: 01934 830225

Email: clerk_wrington@hotmail.com