Home

Applications

(Current)

BeInvolved Blog
Brownfield
Community News
Consultation List
COVID Info
Development Table
Elsewhere
Environmental
Food Security
Fracking
General
Housing £
Incentives £
Infill Status
Issues
JSP
Mapping
Neighbourhood Plans
News Articles
Objections

Parish Council Information

Parish Plan
Planning Info
Plastics
Representation
Road Safety
Rule 6 - Appeals
Settlement Boundary
Statutory Consultee
Sustainability
Water
Why BOB?


 Also like us on...

 Bleadon


and Twitter



Wallflower House Update

Posted on 8th June, 2020

 

In April there appeared to be a conflict between the 'AGREED' Decision notice and its contents. BOB asked for an update and in response Bleadon Parish Council reluctantly published a table of 'Planning Applications 2020', from which the following was taken:

"APPROVED 14/05/20 Currently before the Court to correct the error"

 

BPCs actual planning application submission:

 

"Demolition of existing house workshop and outbuildings and erection of 4 new dwellings – Wallflower House 30 Coronation Road Bleadon Somerset BS24 0PG

 

In its present form the parish council objects to the proposed planning application.

 

Bleadon Parish Council acknowledges that this site requires development but in doing so the developer needs to be recognisant of the location of this site it being in the centre of the village. Due to it occupying the gradient of the hill which currently overlooks the church and surrounding cottages the development needs to be conversant and sympathetic to the local properties the majority of which are constructed of stone.

 

The present development does not take into account the general ambience of this part of the village and in the view of many residents the present layout is over development. Four three storey houses in this location is simply not appropriate. As previously stated the Parish Council supports development of this site as did the majority of the respondents to Neighbourhood Plan survey but it has to be in keeping to the local environment and beneficial to its surrounding environs."

 

Comments submitted to Mike Cole Case Officer on the 27th April 2020"

BOB subsequently asked for clarification on how planning application decisions, such as Wallflower House, were made during BPC's COVID19 Lockup period Mar-June, but this request has so far been ignored, unacknowledged and unanswered. For example,

The Planning Application table doesn't state the 'by e-mail' date that "The Parish Council recommended approval' for this application. When was this response democratically voted on and agreed by all councillors?

 

We note that councillors commented, "As previously stated, the Parish Council supports development of this site as did the majority of the respondents to Neighbourhood Plan survey but it has to be in keeping to the local environment and beneficial to its surrounding environs." How was this statement derived from the NDP survey results for the Wallflower specific site? When did BPC publicly state to support the comment "previously stated the Parish Council supports development of this site"?

 

What are the 5 development sites identified by BPC, and what are BPC's NDP proposals? "please add any comments you may have on your site allocations here ... 5 sites ... We have only anecdotal evidence of the potential availability of sites.  The call for sites and initial discussion is part of this grant application and will lead to a formal process of site appraisal in the next stage of the project 2019-2020" - Taken from BPC's first and second Locality Grant applications. Is ths site one of the five?

 

It should be noted that in the councils Autumn 19 Newsletter-113 it states that BPC submitted the NDP survey results to the Sanders Fields Appeal Inspector quoting a 56% household response i.e. an overall majority of the parish, a similar percentage that councillors have repeated a number of times. The actual NDP Working Group minutes stated a 30% resident response, i.e. an overall minority of the parish? How is this discrepancy explained?

NDP Review:

 

BPC transparency issues appear to be continuing. It seems that BPC's NDP is effectively being built behind closed doors, with anonymous members stated to be influencing the group, primarily for the purpose of the 200 Houses Appeal. There appears to have been no NDP Working Group meeting since Sept 19. There have been no Bleadon NDP public meetings in the last 3 years, with concerns raised over BPC's initial Claverham NDP presentation and lack of democratic representation at the 2018 APM. The public meeting agreed to held by BPC in Nov 19 seemed to have been cancelled by the NDP WG via the Newsletter-114 with no comment, reference or noted discussion and/or agreement by full council around that time?

 

The recent March 20 minutes do not make the situation any clearer, noting that "The Chairman provided a verbal update" and "WebGlu Hosting – Neighbourhood Plan £60.00, £12.00". How is this showing open and transparent decision making and expenditure of this 'independent' publicly financed group?

 

The NDP project has been operating with an unclear BPC publicly funded budget, managed independently from BPC, with no itemised expenditure accounted or decision making by council, as stated by the previous Clerk/RFO at our Audit meeting last August. Councillors now appear to be using this document for council decision making, which is also currently being made behind closed doors without transparency.

 

----

Previous blog on Wallflower House blog

 

Bleadon Councils First Virtual Zoom Meeting

 

NDP update blog

 

ICO Model Publication Scheme - BPC comparison table

 

ICO website 

 

 

 

Make A Comment

Characters left: 2000

Comments (0)