The parish council has received the below information from MDC, which may be of interest to the parish:
My name is Nataliya. I am writing to introduce myself as I have recently been appointed as a Community Health Coordinator and Policy Officer at Mendip District Council. I have been given your details as a parish clerk in the Mendip area.
Part of my role is to explore practices and activities around health and wellbeing that are taking place in communities within the Mendip area, with a view of enabling wider networking and establishing where support is available, or indeed required.
I’d love to hear what activities and groups are in your parishes, be it walking groups, amdram or school projects. Equally, if you have residents who would like to set up any groups but not sure how to do so, I will be more than happy to look into what advice and support can be accessed.
If you are not the best contact, could you please forward my contact details to those interested in promoting good health and wellbeing within your community.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Community Health Coordinator and Policy Officer
Mendip District Council,
Council Offices, Cannards Grave Road, Shepton Mallet,
Somerset BA4 5BT
Web Address: www.mendip.gov.uk
Direct Telephone: 01749 341407
Customer Services: 0300 303 8588
The Chairman of the Parish Council, Clive Abbott, met the Managing Director of Lochailort Investments Ltd, Mr Hugo Haig, on 5 July to reinforce the PC’s dismay, and that of the community in Norton St Philip, at the planting of leylandii trees along the perimeter of Fortescue Fields and the Laverton Triangle. While recognising that was planted on private land was for the owner’s judgement and decision, the Chairman said that this planting had been very unwelcome in the village; and he also drew attention to concerns that ancient hedgerows could lose moisture, nutrition and light. The Chairman requested that the leylandii be removed. He commented that while there was no obligation to consult the PC, some discussion in advance of the planting would have been appreciated.
The Chairman also commented on the separate issue of some damage to the leylandii, underlining that vandalism in any part of the civil parish of Norton St Philip was unacceptable and that the PC would do all it could to discourage such activity. Its views on this matter had been made wholly clear in a statement which had already appeared on the PC’s website. He drew a clear distinction between the PC’s concerns about the appearance of the leylandii and its attitude to damage to the new planting.
Mr Haig explained the background to Lochailort’s investment, and the scale of its involvement, in Norton St Philip in recent years. He listened carefully to the concerns expressed on the recent planting of leylandii, and noted the issues raised. The meeting concluded with a request to Mr Haig to reflect on the points which the Chairman had made.
Please see below for the comments submitted by the parish council on planning applications considered at the July meeting:
2017/1380/REM – Land to the south of Longmead Close – application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval 2013/1821 and subsequent 2014/1877/VRC for the erection of 21 dwellings. Matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be determined – Objection on the grounds detailed below (proposed Cllr Walker, seconded Cllr Eastment):
1. FR 11/13 would be enclosed by a 1.8m high close-boarded fence. We think that this is inappropriate and it raises security issues, especially on dark winter nights. (We support the arguments on these security issues set out by the Police Architectural Liaison Officer in his comments of 4 July.) We feel that post and rail, or other low fencing, about a metre high, with some low soft landscaping, would be appropriate.
2. The recently laid section of permissive footpath (which forms only a short part of the whole of the permissive footpath) detailed in Application 2013/1045 is redundant, outside the red line of the development and should be removed and made good. None of the permissive footpath is needed with the Site Layout proposed in this application.
3. FR 11/15 will pass through two gardens, cross an estate road and then go between the gardens of two houses, and there would be high close-boarded fencing (which we oppose for the reasons set out in 1. above). While normally we would wish to see the line of PROWs retained, in this case it would more rational for a revised footpath to follow the line of the new estate road (notwithstanding DEFRA Circular1/09, to which reference is made in the Design and Access Statement). Such a footpath, running from south west corner of the site to join FR 11/13 to the north of plot 31, should be distanced from the road through landscaping while avoiding going through any gardens. It would also be sensible to re-route the existing footpath (FR 11/15) along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site while retaining the link between FR 11/15 and FR 11/13 to the north of plot 31. The proposal is most easily seen from the black dotted lines marked on the attached site layout.
A parking area is proposed on open land to the south of the red line. We are strongly opposed to this proposal and any incursion across that re line.
In addition, the parish council made the following comments:
Comments of SCC Rights of Way Officer
We encourage and request Mendip DC to give considerable weight to these comments of 7 July (as well as those of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer of 4 July, noted above). As suggested in those comments, discussion with the applicant of where the footpaths should go, and clarity on detailed issues, eg the width of footpaths, is essential.
It is not clear whether there are any three bedroom houses in the current application. (It appears that no three bedroom houses are currently proposed.) We understand that Mendip DC are seeking to clarify the position with the applicant. It would be good to have two open market two bedroom houses.
The colour of the roof tiles across the development needs to be consistent with the earlier phase of development to the north of the site which is the subject of this application.
The parish council supports the suggestion of the PROW Officer that a Grampian Condition is imposed in relation to footpaths 11/13 and 11/15.
The parish council wishes to be represented at such time that these matters are discussed.
2017/1586/HSE – 6 Norton Grange, BA2 7NT – Loft conversion to include rear dormer and front roof lights. New door and window to gable end – the application had been withdrawn.
2017/1591/HSE – Church Meadow House, Church Street – Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey bedroom extension – Support (proposed Cllr Walker, seconded Cllr Hitchins).
2017/1421/HSE – Ranmore Cottage, Town End – erection of rear and side extensions. New render to existing facades – Support with comment – Support, but please note the following comment. If render is to be used on the external walls on this house, which is in the conservation area, it is essential that it is of a colour and texture that ‘reads’ well, and blends, with the stone rubble walls on the rest of the house. There should be a condition that the LPA must approve both colour and texture. Note: Para. 11 of the Application Form requires applicants to describe proposed materials and finishes, but the application simply says ‘Render’ and is silent on colour (proposed Cllr Hitchins, seconded Cllr Eastment).
2017/1632/HSE – 7 Fair Close – erection of two bay garage with log store, addition of roof light to existing house – Support (proposed Cllr Walker, seconded Cllr Hitchins).
2017/1825/TCA – Albion Cottage, High Street – fell Norway spruce – Support (proposed Cllr Walker, seconded Cllr Eastment).