university of bristol land at pudding pie lane, langford · university of bristol – land at...

University of Bristol Land at Pudding Pie Lane, Langford April 2015 Consultation - Summary Feedback Report

Prepared by Avril Baker Consultancy, May 2015

University of Bristol – Land at Pudding Pie Lane, Langford Consultation April 2015

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY – May 2015 2

Contents Introduction 2 Consultation activities Parish Council Public Consultation events Key Stakeholders Near neighbours/wider public

2 2 2 3 3

Feedback Overview Key stakeholder session Analysis of public feedback

4 4 5 5

Response to Consultation and Next Steps

13

Appendices 14

Introduction The University of Bristol is bringing forward proposals for a residential development on its land at Pudding Pie Lane. The site, of just over 12 acres, is close to the University Veterinary School and bounded by Jubilee Lane to the north, Stock Lane to the east and Pudding Pie Lane to the south. The initial proposals showed a scheme of around 150 new homes, consisting of a mix of housing types and sizes along with a proportion of affordable housing for local people. In addition the proposals include public open space, a children’s play area, landscaping and also a community building. As part of the ongoing design and planning process the University wanted to consult with stakeholders and the local community before working up a more detailed scheme and submitting a planning application. ABC was appointed as an independent facilitator to arrange public consultation to enable interested stakeholders and the local community to give feedback.

Consultation activities Churchill Parish Council In advance of the consultation members of the Parish Council were given an informal briefing on the emerging proposals and their advice sought as to a suitable local venue and the extent of neighbour notification. The Parish Council assisted with further publicising the consultation event through the Parish Magazine, placing posters around the Parish and posting the event notification on the Parish Council website.



Public Consultation events: The consultation took the form of an initial presentation and discussions session for invited key stakeholders from 4 – 5pm on Friday 17 April in the library of Churchill Primary School. This was followed by two open drop-in style public sessions in the main school hall; one from 5 – 8pm on Friday 17 April and a second from 10am – 4pm on Saturday 18 April. Key stakeholders A list of key stakeholders was drawn up which included the members of Churchill Parish Council, the local ward councillor and officers from North Somerset Council, service providers including Avon and Somerset Constabulary, Avon Fire and Rescue, First Bristol and key local amenity groups and others with an interest in the site including CPRE, English Heritage and Mendip AONB. (for the full list of invited key stakeholders see Appendix A) Key stakeholders were invited to attend a key stakeholder consultation session at Churchill Primary School on Friday 17 April from 4 – 5pm (see Appendix B) prior to the public exhibition. Key stakeholders were also notified of the following public sessions should they be unable to attend the workshop. Attendance From the database of 47 individuals a total of 12 people attended the session. Attendees represented Churchill Parish Council, Churchill Primary School, Langford Evangelical Church, St John Baptist Church and University Veterinary School. Proceedings Representing the project team were Matthew Halstead from Alder King Planning Consultants, Jamie Furse from AWW Architects, Andy Jenner from Clarke Bond engineering consultants and Avril Baker from ABC as consultation co-ordinator. Matthew Halstead set the scene regarding the site planning context, the wider planning policy background and the University’s intentions regarding this application. Jamie Furze then outlined the overall proposals with input from Andy Jenner on traffic and parking issues.

During the presentation attendees asked various questions and raised a number of issues which are covered in the Feedback section. Neighbours and wider public A catchment area (see Appendix C) was drawn up for directly notifying neighbours of the consultation. This covered nearly 560 addresses within an area including; Birch Drive, Blackmoor Close, Blackmoor, Bristol Road, Broadoak Road, Greenwell Lane, Hillmead, Jubilee Lane, Ladymead Lane, Langford Road, Lower Langford, Maysmead Lane, Pudding Pie Close, Pudding Pie Lane, Rowan Way, Saxon Street, Says Lane, St Mary's Gardens, Stock Lane and Stockmead. Recipients were invited by letter (see Appendix D) to attend the public sessions of the exhibition which ran from 5 – 8pm on Friday 17 April and from 10am – 4pm on Saturday 18 April.



A link was provided to the University website www.bristol.ac.uk/estates/projects/langford providing information about the project and a download of the exhibition material (see Appendix E) The exhibition was further publicised through a news item on the front page of the Parish Magazine, an event listing on the Parish website and on posters which were placed around the area (see Appendix F). Attendance Over 350 people signed into the exhibition at the school during the two public sessions. Public Exhibition The consultation was focussed around an exhibition which consisted of 9 panels (see Appendix G) describing the following: Board 1 – Introduction – have your say Board 2 – The Site Board 3 – Opportunities Board 4 – Planning & Sustainability Board 5 – Design Principles Board 6 – The Masterplan Board 7 – Access and Movement Board 8 – Community Benefits Board 9 – Next steps On hand to talk to attendees at both the key stakeholder session and the following public exhibition was a rota of the following members of the project team:

• Patrick Finch – University of Bristol (Saturday only) • Matthew Halstead – Alder King Planning • Nicola Vines – Alder King Planning Consultants (Friday only) • Jamie Furse – AWW Architects • Avril Baker – Avril Baker Consultancy • Elizabeth Loughran – Avril Baker Consultancy

Feedback

Feedback has been compiled through the group discussion at the key stakeholder session, written responses from those attending the exhibition and also verbal feedback from the team following discussions held with individuals at the exhibition. Overview: There was a high level of attendees at the consultation sessions the majority of whom chose to return written comments. Generally the majority of those who responded were opposed to the scheme but certainly not from everyone. Key issues of concern were the impact of this scale of development on traffic/local roads and community infrastructure, particularly pressure on school places as well as concern about the principle of developing a green field site.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/estates/projects/langford



There was some support for the principle of development with positive feedback especially for new housing, including affordable, in the area though some reservations were expressed about the number of homes being proposed. There was also interest in creating safer pedestrian and cycle routes. Views were mixed about the desirability of a new village hall in this location. As part of discussions at the event there was clearly strong concern about the vacuum in housing policy in North Somerset which was enabling such sites to come forward for development. Key Stakeholder Session During the presentation attendees asked various questions and raised a number of issues. For a full record of the meeting and discussion points (see Appendix H) Initial comments were raised in the opening discussions on the following:

• University’s decision to develop this site • Principle of development • Infrastructure – including background studies and initial findings on:

o Sewerage and drainage o Ecology o Flood risk o Utilities o Transport o Ground investigations o Archaeology o Landscape and visual impact

• Capacity of the Local Planning Authority to deal with the application

• Timing of any application within context of the referral to Secretary of State

Following a presentation by team members explaining the proposals and key features of the scheme there were further specific discussions on the following areas:

• Density of the development • New Community Hall and scope for Parish Council to manage • Vehicle Access/Parking and traffic especially on Stock Lane and Pudding Pie Lane • Proposed Housing mix, size and numbers • Affordable housing provision and allocation • Pedestrian access to the Vet School and scope to improve road safety • Likely end developer • Street lighting • Building heights • School places • Possible land swap with the School • Traffic at peak hours and on key routes in/out of area



Analysis of public feedback Attendees at the exhibition were invited to provide feedback through a written comment form (see Appendix I) with a requested return date of 27 April for responses to be included in the Consultation Summary report.

Responses could be posted in a comment box on the day or individuals could complete their forms at their leisure and return to ABC at a later date.

201 comment forms, letters and emails were returned which is an extremely high response rate. Responses have been analysed by question as follows: Q1. What do you think about the principle of redeveloping the site for this purpose? Of those who responded to this question 18% showed a level of support, (2.75% strong supportive and 15.38% broadly supportive but with some concerns) with nearly 80% objecting. See more detailed breakdown below.

Q2. From your local knowledge of the site and surrounding area are you aware of any other constraints, issues or opportunities that might influence the proposals? There were 171 responses. The issue of most concern raised by nearly 70% of respondents was congestion and traffic followed by the impact on local infrastructure (56.14%). Other shared concerns were around the extent of housing, sewage & flooding and parking on Pudding Pie Lane. See below for a more detailed breakdown



Key themes/issues:

Traffic/congestion • Size of development/number of houses leading to volume of traffic • Impact of additional traffic on narrow roads • Adding to existing issues with congestion • Very happy with the highway improvement intentions, particularly if they close

Ladymead/Pudding Pie to through traffic from the A38

Impact on local infrastructure • Capacity at local school/GP surgery • Need to transport children to other schools if local ones full • Primary & secondary schools are near capacity and further building programmes

will be needed to accommodate the extra pupils • Support potential to develop the 'heart' of the area, a central place, and maybe

more facilities

Extent of proposed housing/number of houses • Too many houses for existing infrastructure to cope • With other housing proposal happening in the surrounding area, more thought is

needed to the knock on effects of increase in population size/cumulative impact • What is the defined local housing need? • There is a definite need for more affordable housing in the area available to

children of local residents



Miscellaneous: • Queries regarding Greenbelt/conservation area • development being outside village development boundary • why build on farmland and not brown field site

Q3. Do you have any comments about the overall layout and density of the proposed housing and/or the children’s play area and public open space? There were 171 responses. Over half of those who responded (55.56%) provided feedback on housing density, followed by around a quarter commenting on open and public space (26.9%) and traffic problems (24.56%). Other areas attracting fewer responses included the community building, GP & School and parking. See below for a more detailed breakdown:

Key themes/issues:

Housing density • The size & density of the development would not be in keeping with the size &

character of the village • 150 new homes is far too many, I would rather see more open space • Density of the proposed development is beyond sustainable for the local

infrastructure and services • Site should reflect local lay-out and densities of established housing on Pudding

Pie Lane (cul-de-sacs



• This is not a Town/City where this density would go unnoticed but a rural village, even at 6/acre it would only just be acceptable

Open and public space • The village is already well provided with public open spaces of far greater size

than that which this development will afford • We already have a park in the village and a green • The “orchard” is a disingenuous euphuism. On the plan the trees are used as part

of the landscape design not as implied as part of a creative collection of trees to produce crops

• Children’s access to green play area has traffic crossing at 3 points – dangerous • Good balance - facilities are needed especially for the youth

Traffic problems • It's far too many houses and the roads simply won’t cope with the extra volume of

traffic • Current proposal too dense with 'rat-run’ vehicle access • Lack of public transport means that if 3 people in a household work they need 3

cars • Roads unable to support this development - Jubilee Road and Ladymead Lane

are single track roads, this will make life dangerous with unbearable traffic issues for existing residents

Miscellaneous: • Many people commented that there was no requirement for an additional

community building/sufficient provision already in the area and some concerns that it could become a facility used by students/for student activities

• It is also difficult to understand the sizes of the proposed gardens as there are no indicative plot boundaries on the master plan but they seem small for it to be classed as a green development

• The architects appear to have paid good attention to the surrounding /established area and the likely needs and impact of the proposed development

• The council’s target is to reduce the overprovision of one bedroomed dwellings in the area yet this development seems likely to significantly increase the proportion of one bedroomed dwellings in the village

• Too large - 2 smaller estates? Could a development option be on two different sites in the area to spilt the extra traffic

• "Community orchards" are mentioned in the display. Really? An orchard requires at least one acre and I can't see the developer setting aside that much

Q4. Do you have any comments about the proposed pedestrian or vehicular access? 172 responses were received. Stock Lane received the most comments from 78.49% of those who responded. The next most mentioned area was parking and congestion on Pudding Pie Lane (22.67% of responses) followed by pedestrians (16.28%).



Key themes/issues:

Stock Lane access • Stock Lane is heavily congested at peak times, narrow with HVG volume & large

vehicles traffic/Stock Lane is a very busy road and needs widening from the North side of the proposed access

• For those of us who use Jubilee Lane visibility from Stock Lane is poor when entering Jubilee Lane from the north and great care is needed when turning out into Stock Lane

• The access point on Stock Lane, that is a nightmare road, especially in rush hour/vehicle access onto stock lane is crazy with the large number of vehicles already using this road and heavy vehicles often block this route

• One vehicular access on what is already a heavily burdened road (Stock Lane) would potentially cause problems for existing traffic on Stock Lane as well as causing a bottleneck at commuting hours for the development itself. Yet there does not seem to be scope for additional vehicular access: to encourage traffic to enter/exit on Pudding Pie lane would interfere with school run traffic for Churchill Primary; & Jubilee Lane is too narrow to encourage extra traffic

• Preventing vehicular access to Pudding Pie Lane is a good step however it won't stop people cutting through it. Traffic controls should be put in place to prevent cutting through Pudding Pie Lane.

Parking and congestion (particularly on Pudding Pie Lane) • Pudding Pie Lane is very congested on week days due to local Business/Uni staff

and or students parking their vehicles at and close to the junctions of Stock Lane and Stockmead making parking for local residents impossible and making the movement of traffic around that junction dangerous and risky for pedestrians

• Traffic parked outside the primary school is a problem at the moment - will yellow lines be installed as the plan shows houses facing Pudding Pie Lane and if no restriction outside the school they won’t be able to get out of their drives

• It is difficult to see what highway upgrades could be made to Stock Lane, Langford Road or Ladymead Road to cope with the significant extra traffic that this development would bring, but we welcome the University’s suggestions

Pedestrians • Proposed footpaths are good as they are required



• Pedestrian access to schools - Should include walkways to Secondary School - currently children walk on Ladymead

• Careful consideration would have to be taken with pedestrian access on Stock Lane and Pudding Pie Lane

• The perceived benefits of improved pedestrian and cycling routes between Pudding Pie Lane and Jubilee Lane are overstated. They will be of minimal benefit to the existing community as the existing footpaths to the East and West of the development are adequate.

Miscellaneous: • The majority of smaller property will become buy-to-let and so the number of cars

per house will be significant as they will be filled with students • Consider speed restrictions from roundabout to Jubilee Lane • The secondary access for emergency use only will be almost impossible to

achieve bearing in mind the pressure to provide a ‘rat run’ to Stock Lane • The construction phase of this project will of necessity require a significant volume of

construction traffic and heavy vehicles to have access to this site, and the traffic chaos that will ensue cannot be imagined

Q5. Do you have any views on what community facilities might be appropriate? 148 responses were received . The two most commented on topics were; the village hall/centre, raised by over half of those who responded ( 50.68%), followed by school capacity raised by 29.05% of respondees. See below for a detailed breakdown.

Key themes/issues:

Village hall/community centre • There was a conflict of opinion regarding provision of a new community facility –

75 people made comments regarding the possible provision of a new hall with the vast majority (62) of those responding questioning whether there was sufficient



need given halls and facilities already in the village and close by which are “underused”

• Creating a new/additional community hall will add to the current disparate community hall facilities in the village, and is not in an ideal location

• A community hall would be a huge incentive, but it needs to be a good size & significantly larger and better equipped than the Memorial Hall in Churchill. i.e. large hall, good kitchen + 2 medium sized meeting rooms

• The old doctors surgery is vacant could be used as a community building rather than having to build another

• Community Hall might be helpful but who would pay for its construction/maintenance?

• Consideration should given to providing funding/development to a single inclusive community hall on the existing memorial hall, football club, old surgery site.

• The village needs a new village hall - if it’s going to be on this site it will need much more parking space around it

• The current community hall is in disrepair and not well maintained so a new one would be great.

• Already difficulty finding people to run the Memorial Hall. With the proposal of its own community centre, this estate will be insular

• A dedicated building for pre-school on the site, and redevelopment of existing halls to form one multi-use village hall would be preferable to building a new community hall on the site

School capacity • Ensure sufficient spaces with regard to local services e,g, schools, doctors. The

school is full/already needs better provision for before and after school facilities • More schools to be able to cope with the increasing number of children • Provide a pre-school/nursery • Make the school bigger without portable classrooms

Miscellaneous: • The suggestion of a community hall is the usual developers "sweetener" to reduce

local objections • A link to the Strawberry line should be considered to allow safe passage to

pedestrians + cyclists as no safe access exits • What we do not have a great deal of is fitness facilities • If this was to go ahead...The car park at Budgens and road layout would need to

change – it’s very dangerous at the moment because it can't cope with the volume of traffic

• As an older person looking to possibly buy on the proposed site, I wonder if facilities covered extend to being suitable also for older people as well as families

Q6. Do you have any other comments or suggestions about the proposals? 150 responses were received which have been analysed as a word cloud



Key themes/issues:

Many of the key issues and objections already mentioned were reiterated by individuals namely that traffic and congestion was the main area of concern, that both primary and secondary schools are at capacity and that the GP surgery/ medical services are already over-subscribed. Other miscellaneous points were as follows:

• Public transport is poor/no direct links to Bristol • Houses will be purchased by landlords and filled with students • Poor state of the local roads • Concerns about drainage and sewerage particularly following heavy rainfall • Development on green field/agricultural land • Site is outside the "natural" boundary of the village • Excessive size of development, out of proportion with existing village/loss of rural

appeal • Breathes new life into this area, enables young families to get on the property

market. Response to consultation feedback and next steps The University would like to thank all those who provided feedback and comments which have been considered by the project team as the design and planning work has progressed. A table detailing the key issues raised and team responses, themed under the following headings, is shown at Appendix J.

o Highways /Access o Local infrastructure o Housing density and requirement o Housing mix/Layout



o Community facilities o Green Belt/Conservation/Village boundary o Flooding/drainage o Miscellaneous

This Report of Community Involvement forms part of the package of supporting documents which accompany the planning application. Once the application has been validated all the planning documents will be available to view or comment on in the planning section of North Somerset Council’s website. Appendices Appendix A – Key stakeholder organisations invite list Appendix B – Key stakeholder invite letter Appendix C – Catchment Area Appendix D – Neighbour Invite letter Appendix E – University web page Appendix F – Parish council magazine and website Appendix G – Consultation Exhibition Appendix H – Notes of Key stakeholder session Appendix I – Comment Form Appendix J – Table of issues raised and team responses

University of Bristol Land at Pudding Pie Lane, Langford

Appendices to April 2015 Consultation Summary Feedback Report

Appendices: Appendix A – Key stakeholder organisations invite list Appendix B – Key stakeholder invite letter Appendix C – Catchment Area Appendix D – Neighbour Invite letter Appendix E – University web page Appendix F – Parish council magazine and website Appendix G – Consultation Exhibition Appendix H – Notes of Key stakeholder session Appendix I – Comment Form Appendix J – Table of issues and responses

Avril Baker Consultancy

Appendix A – Key stakeholder organisations invite list

1st Sandford and Churchill Scout Group

Avon and Somerset Constabulary

Avon Wildlife Trust

Churchill Academy & Sixth Form

Churchill CEVC Primary School

Churchill Parish Council

CPRE

English Heritage/Historic England

Environment Agency

First Bristol

House of Commons

Langford Cricket Club

Langford Evangelical Church

Langford Football Club

Mendip Hills AONB

Mendip Society

NHS Bristol

North Somerset Council

Pudding Pie Lane Allotments via Parish Clerk

St. John the Baptist

St. Mary's

Sustrans

The Langford History Group

Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance University of Bristol School of Veterinary Science

Wessex Water

Wrington Vale Medical Practice

Appendix B – Key stakeholder invite letter

Appendix C – Catchment Area

Appendix D – Neighbour Invite letter

Appendix E – University web page

Appendix F – Parish council magazine and website

Appendix G – Consultation Exhibition

Appendix H – Notes of Key stakeholder session

University of Bristol – Land at Pudding Pie Lane, Langford Key Stakeholder session – 17 April 2015

Team present: Jamie Furze – AWW Architects Matthew Halstead – Alder King Planning Andy Jenner – Clarke Bond (part) Avril Baker – ABC

Attendees: (12) Representing: Churchill Parish Council, Churchill Primary School, Langford Evangelical Church, St John Baptist Church and University Veterinary School

Proceedings: Matthew Hallstead set the scene regarding the site planning context, the wider planning policy background and the University’s intentions regarding this application. Jamie Furze then outlined the overall proposals with input from Andy Jenner on traffic and parking issues.

During the presentation attendees asked various questions and raised a number of issues:

These have been summarised as follows:

University decision to develop this site Members of the parish council questioned the timing of this application coming forward given the current uncertainty over the planning situation in N Somerset and views were expressed that the University was taking advantage of the planning hiatus. Also that the University is looking to develop grade 2 agricultural land and a Greenfield site which is not appropriate

Aspiration by University to look at progressing this site and Alder King has been appointed accordingly. Alder King can’t comment on exactly when this decision was made, as the University continually appraises its wider land holding but this site has come forward now due to the current planning policy position. N Somerset has referred the latest housing figures, agreed by the Inspector, to the Secretary of State for further examination but currently the figure of 21,000 units stands and the University therefore has the opportunity to identify land to meet this target. Langford is considered to be a service village. The role of the planning team is to therefore to identify whether the site is appropriate, sustainable location for development. If the Council can’t demonstrate a 5 year housing supply then accordingly the application will be determined on sustainable grounds according to whether on balance any harm would be outweighed by the benefits. The application will be in outline with all matters reserved other than access

Principle of development Given concerns of some attendees it was suggested that any objections to the principle of development should not prevent attendees commenting on the proposals being brought forward to ensure that their views would shape any future application coming forward and identify areas of potential community benefit.

Infrastructure Sewage Concern that existing problems with sewage and therefore question future capacity if this development is built. An example was given of when the pumping station failed and discharged sewage into Langford stream affecting gardens/houses. The pumping station is adopted and maintained by Wessex Water. The team has been liaising with Wessex and as part of the application will have to demonstrate what needs to be provided to cope with demand. This will be covered by a planning condition to deal with any impact/mitigation required

Drainage The team has produced an indicative masterplan in order to test whether drainage works and also satisfy the Environment Agency.

The team is undertaking a number of detailed investigations to understand all the issues regarding the site and the impact of any future development in order to inform a future planning application. These include:

Ecology

Flood risk

Utilities

Transport

Ground investigations

Archaeology

Landscape and visual impact

To date no significant problems have been flagged up but a solution needs to be found and issues addressed in the application which will be underpinned by all the background work and evidence. As part of the statutory planning process the applicant has to convince a whole range of statutory consultees which includes Environment Agency, Wessex Water, as well as key officers within the Council such as Highways, Ecology, Landscape etc.

Capacity of the Local Planning Authority Concern raised that N Somerset Council planning team is ‘swamped’ by work and worried that the community might have to live with the consequences of rushed technical reports. The team will make sure the planning application is of the highest standards to assist the Local Authority. If the LA is under pressure it won’t issue a decision until it is satisfied.

Timing re referral to Secretary of State View that the University should wait until the S0S has made a decision re housing numbers. University had already undertaken a significant amount of work before the SoS referral. This is not a speculative application as the University has been promoting land options in North Somerset and Alder King have been acting on their behalf for some 7 years and represented the University during the Inspection of the Core Strategy

Presentation of proposals Jamie Furze ran through the site constraints and opportunities and the key elements of the indicative masterplan outlining:

o Retention of existing hedgerows where possible o Mature trees to provide a landscape buffer o Single vehicle junction off Stock Lane o Suggested community hall to support/supplement existing hall facility o Playspace – levels set by housing numbers o Green link with village green at centre – with wildflowers/trees, play space in middle, communal

fruit trees and landscape buffer to north o North/south route with cycle/pedestrian priority o Materials – picking up on context in/around Langford with stone walls, render, clay roofs, green

edges to buildings

Density Brief from the University is to integrate the development into Langford so that not an inward facing development . Also proposing a lower density than other developers might ask for i.e approx 1:30 per hectare (calculated in relation to the entire site) which is comparable to Broad Oak. The amount of green space proposed is some 4x the statutory requirement

Community Hall Indicative at this stage but the main hall is sized around a badminton court with stage, meeting room, toilets etc. Proposing an enlarged parking area for the hall. Keen to get feedback on this during the consultation.

The team suggested that the Parish Council could be offered the facility to own/manage the hall as the University is keen to give something back to the community. Alternatively the Parish Council may prefer to have a financial contribution to extend the existing hall/facilities.

There was discussion as to whether this would detract from other community facilities in the parish. The team agreed to sketch out the design more fully and forward to the Parish Council and discussions would continue.

Vehicle Access/Parking Proposing a vehicle entrance off Stock Lane as aware of issues in Pudding Pie Lane with cars double parked on the road. Houses facing Pudding Pie Lane have their own off street parking to rear in garages with driveways off the road. Allowing 3 spaces per dwelling where as the planning policy would indicate 2.

Concern raised re. cars parked between Stock Lane and Pudding Pie Lane, attributed to students who live there.

Concern about traffic on Stock Lane as very narrow and alot of HGVs use this route.

Housing Mix Proposing a range from 1 bed apartments through to 5 bed houses with majority 3 – 4 bed. Housing numbers Currently looking at up to 150 units. When started the pre-application enquiry the team did not have all the technical information.

View expressed that given the impact on traffic, sustainability of school if the University was to propose fewer houses and some obvious community benefit they might bet a more positive response.

Team has factored in that some people choose to work from home and has therefore sized the garages so they could be converted for office or playroom space as view that there could be interest in providing a live/work environment in this location. Is a way of limiting the numbers commuting to work every day.

Affordable housing Re. affordable provision, team is in contact with N Somerset and have committed to 30% affordable with a mix of shared ownership and rented.

Point made that young people move out of village e.g to Weston as want to buy houses

Affordable homes will be allocated to local people who are on the local housing register so advice is that people interested should sign up now. The team can provide the Parish Council with some literature and information.

General Election The application would not be affected by the elections as it would be determined post election. The decision about N Somerset’s housing numbers is unclear as it needs to be made by the SoS.

Pedestrian access to the Vet School There is significant foot traffic to/from the school and numbers will be increasing over next 3 years. Has a crossing been considered? Team is looking at road safety particularly on Stock Lane. Current aspiration to extend the footway and ‘pull the road over and re-align the entrance to the Vet School to allow creation of a footpath all the way to Jubilee Lane

End Developer Question as to how much ‘clout’ the University will have to influence the final development given they will sell on the land. There is an opportunity through conditions in the outline application e.g size of garages, roof heights, palette of materials. The University also wants an exemplar development. Will include sustainable building technologies plus the housing will have to comply with Part L of the Building Regulations.

Street lighting Aware of issue of light pollution in rural areas. But unlikely that the Council would agree to no lighting. Need to strike a balance between intrusion and surveillance/safety but will look at sensitive lighting solutions such as down lighters, low level lighting etc.

Height Not prosing anything higher than 2 storeys but recognise that not very sustainable if roof spaces are not used. The flats will also look like houses.

School places Strong concern about school places as Churchill Primary is at capacity along with most other schools in the vicinity. At present parents have a choice as to where they send children and some come in from wider area.

In response to likely numbers of school places this development would generate there is a formula with the LEA/LPA use. Of the order of 50 – 60 primary and 30 secondary places. The University would be required to make a financial contribution to the LEA who will then decide whether a new school is needed in the wider area or extensions to existing schools. The University will have this discussion with N Somerset.

Suggestion that a school should instead be built on this site instead i.e a land swap. The team confirmed that this has not been discussed with the Unviersity.

Traffic Ongoing discussions are taking place with N Somerset about access and likely traffic impact. Vehicle counts are taking place on a number of junctions to understand the scale if numbers. So far this is indicating around 6.5thousand vehicles a day(???) with 600 at peak hours but surprisingly fewer HGVs than expected. Also looking at queuing lengths on key roads such as Pudding Pie Lane, and onto A38. Flows onto A38 are around 1,000 at peak hour with peak lengths of about 10 vehicles. These numbers are significant but in the context of road engineering not exceptional

In terms of outgoing traffic - over 80% goes to Bristol or Weston. Expect around 75% of traffic from the site will go to the A38. Aware that people use Pudding Pie Lane as a short cut. (??)

Appendix I – Comment Form

Appendix J – Table of Issues and Responses

Technical team response to consultation comments

PUBLIC COMMENTS TEAM RESPONSE

Highways/access

There is insufficient road infrastructure for this new estate. The local roads will struggle to cope with extra traffic and this needs to be addressed. Severe disruption is caused to both Stock Lane and the A38 during peak holiday time and when there are road closures on the nearby stretch of the M5 which occur on a regular basis due to accidents.

Considering occasions when the major trunk road network is closed does not represent normal operation and would be outside of usual consideration. Despite local views the actual volume of traffic observed on the surrounding roads is not abnormally high for roads of this type as demonstrated by the junction modelling undertaken. There are local factors which adversely affect the operation of the local road network which are not amenable to modelling, these are:

1. Wider geometry on Stock Lane which has pinch points north of the site which cause congestion when two large vehicles meet

2. High speeds on the A38 which inhibit capacity on Stock Lane leading to queues forming at peak times which in turn impact the mini roundabout.

The first item will not be addressed until there is a suitable alternative route between the A370 and A38 as HGVs are using this route as a cut through and no amount of calming or TRO restrictions unless rigorously enforced will counter this. The completion of the South Bristol Link in 2016 will provide a superior alternative route when it may be possible to consider an HGV ban except for access. The A38 issue could be addressed through a gateway feature which is being investigated as part of the development proposals

There are very few employment opportunities locally, so the majority of working people will have to out-commute, probably to

The TA fully considers trip rates, traffic generation and distribution. Surprisingly Bristol is not the single biggest

Bristol, which will put further pressure on Stock Lane and also the A38.

destination for people in the ward at the moment. Also surprising is the amount of work from home that occurs in the ward at the moment, almost twice the national average and the development would look to capitalise on this trend by providing options for the conversion of loft space or garage roof space to provide facilities for work from home.

The proposed road from the development site exits on to an already congested road, at a blind spot, and a few meters from a narrow stretch of the road where lorries and other heavy vehicles are unable to pass. This road is classed as a lorry route from Congresbury to the A38 so the congestion at this part of the road happens continually.

Refer to point 1 as well. The site does not emerge at a blind spot. The junction is positioned to be over 90m from both Pudding Pie Lane and Jubilee lane and can provide 4.5mx90m visibility which is full standard for a 30mph trunk road and is clearly shown on the access sketch. There is a narrowing that occurs in the vicinity of the university Vet College entrance which the development looks to address. Issues about lorry routing are considered in point 1.

There are traffic problems/congestion on Pudding Pie Lane at school drop off and collection time.

This is common at all education sites in rural areas. The traffic surveys however did not indicate that there were excessive levels of queuing at the Pudding Pie Lane/Stock lane junction and is one of the reasons why access to the development off Stock lane is preferred over access off Pudding Pie Lane.

There are traffic problems on the B3133 (Stock Lane) due to the narrowness of the road resulting in HGVs being unable to pass.

See previous comments.

Ladymead Lane is a single track road with a dangerous bend. It is a walking route for school children attending Churchill Academy and has no pavement.

Agreed, the fact that people are using it as a rat run and that foreign lorries are being directed to it by SatNav compounds this effect. In an ideal world we would look to close this road to through traffic to the west of the junction of Ladymead Lane with Pudding Pie Lane ensuring that Jubilee lane didn’t become a surrogate “rat run”

Stock Lane is an accident hot spot. The 40 miles per hour limit is too high and should be reduced between Budgens and the adjacent traffic lights.

I believe that this relates to the A38 at the junction with Stock Lane as consideration of the accident records do not show a cluster of accidents over the last 5 years on Stock lane itself. Furthermore Stock Lane in the vicinity of the site is subject to a

30mph limit although traffic speeds are generally above this as reported in the TA. That the section of Stock lane to the north of the Vet College entrance is 40mph is a matter for the Highway Authority, although I suspect that posting a lower limit in this area would not be observed anyway despite the poor geometry and narrow sections.

How can you upgrade Stock Lane without demolishing properties?

Refer to technical drawing.

Jubilee Lane is a single track road which will not cope with any additional traffic.

It is not proposed to put any vehicle access onto Jubilee Lane.

There is a poor level of local public transport with no regular or direct bus links to Bristol or Weston. Therefore the additional housing result in an increase in vehicular movements.

See earlier comments about work from home and distribution of traffic. Yes public transport is poor but when services such as the 121 were available lack of use led to operators removing them. The A2 provides a service into Weston super Mare and connections with both the airport for interchange to the A1 to Bristol and the A4 to Bath as well as connections with national rail at Nailsea and Backwell mainline station.

With reference to your consultation sheet 7 it is presumed that yellow coloured roads would be mainly public highways. These appear too narrow to serve the NW sector of the proposal. Further:

Traffic conflict will be difficult to avoid across the two ‘squares’ that connect eastern access to the western side of the proposal.

The secondary access for emergency use only will be almost impossible to achieve bearing in mind the pressure to provide a ‘rat run’ to Stock Lane.

Carriageway widths are generally 5.5m reducing to 4.8m which is common highway dimensions set out the DfT Manual for Streets The squares are designed to be traffic/speed restraint measure, conflict and a lack of clear priority are a major part in reducing vehicle speed.

The proposed accesses are dangerous:

The cycle path exit at Jubilee Lane is very dangerous.

Loss of layby, this is a spot where large vehicles can pull in to let other large vehicles pass (the road is too narrow

The proposed accesses will be subject to a road Safety Audit as part of the detailed design and S38/S278 technical Approval process

beyond this point).

The pavement along Stock Lane would be interrupted by a new junction making it more dangerous.

There are no proposed improvements to the vet school entrance or to properties fronting Stock Lane, e.g. introducing a verge / extending pavement.

The layby is too far from the pinch point to be a reliable refuge and the road width at the vet College entrance is being improved The junction onto Stock Lane will be provided with usual tactile paving and an uncontrolled crossing, the access is a side road to a residential development and vehicle movements even at peak time are unlikely to exceed 155 vehicles in the hour meaning that there should be plenty of opportunity to cross the side road which has good visibility for approaching vehicles to see pedestrians There are proposed improvements to Stock lane at the vet School entrance

There has never been an issue with the pedestrian access in Langford.

This point is accepted.

Pudding Pie lane is already misused by speeding traffic and there is no walkway for children during dark winter hours. This will be used by new residents as cut through and should be blocked.

Agreed, see earlier comments.

The additional vehicle use would cause problems for the entrance and exit of Budgens (something which the Highways Authority has been particularly mindful of after the recent refurbishment of the Budgens).

This will be considered through Safety Audits and detailed design.

Insufficient local infrastructure

Both primary schools and the existing secondary school are at capacity and would therefore be unable to absorb the number of children resulting from the development.

The secondary school is not currently at capacity, although it is recognised that the primary school is. Therefore financial contributions, structured against the number of children residing at the development will be made to the Council thereby enabling the delivery of new school facilities within the district.

A 25% increase to the amount of housing in the village cannot be supported by local infrastructure and this will put pressure on all local amenities.

The development will provide either physical or financial contributions to mitigate any detrimental impacts to existing infrastructure.

Major constraints beyond the limits of the site e.g. highways, health and education are neither recognised nor properly catered for.

See above.

The local doctors’ surgery is at capacity, and it is already difficult to obtain a timely appointment.

The doctors’ surgery is not currently at capacity.

Housing density and requirement

There are other housing proposals happening in other villages in the surrounding area, therefore more thought is needed to the knock on effects of all anticipated development.

Other committed development i.e. that which benefits from planning permission, where relevant, has been considered in the supporting technical documentation.

The development, as proposed is of too high a density for the existing community of Langford and Churchill.

Excluding the proposed community hall and associated grounds the development is proposed at 29 dwellings per hectare, therefore this is a low density development and has been designed as such to respond to the local character.

The first estimate of the number of houses required for North Somerset was 14,000, the second figure provided was increased to 18,000 and the current figure is 21,000 - who made these estimates and on what data were they based? Who decides where such developments should occur?

The housing requirement for North Somerset has been informed by demographic data produced by the Office of National Statistics. The location of development is determined by North Somerset Council and when it is unable to do so by national planning policy subject to it being ‘sustainable development’.

The plot is outside the village development boundary. The Council’s housing policies, including those relating to development boundaries are now out of date. Therefore development can take place outside of development boundaries subject to it being deemed ‘sustainable development’.

150 dwellings will add hugely to the total number of dwellings in Langford. A survey carried out as part of the Parish Plan indicated that most people in the village did not want further development.

According to the Parish Plan, only 33% of respondents were against further development in the village.

It is difficult to appreciate the massing of the site from a 2D site plan which provides no indication of storey heights. It does not look like there is sufficient provision for parking in the current scheme bearing in mind most families have two or more cars nowadays. It is also difficult to understand the sizes of the proposed gardens as there are no indicative plot boundaries on the master plan but they seem small for it to be classed as a green development.

Parking is proposed in line with or in excess of North Somerset’s parking standards. The application drawing to be submitted within the planning application has plot boundaries indicated.

When the Broadoak development was planned, it was stated that there would be no further large housing developments. The development will increase the village size by 28% The Parish Plan states that any developments that would affect the villages of Churchill and Langford should be strongly resisted at Parish and Local Levels. The Parish should consider expanding its initiative of providing affordable homes for local people to facilitate the provision of a small number of starter homes for local people. This development flies totally in the face of this plan and the will of the local residents.

According to data held by North Somerset Council, the average occupancy rate of residential properties is 2.26. On this basis it would be expected that the development would increase the village’s population by 316 individuals, resulting in a total population of 2,551 people. This would result in a population increase of 14%. The development will provide 30% affordable housing, with a priority for occupation being local people.

The consultation document states that the development would bring “much needed additional housing and associated community benefits”. What is the defined local housing need? Beyond saying that the Core Strategy is out of date the document does not define a local need within the context of the wider needs of the surrounding area and, as discussed below, it is not at all clear what the “associated community benefits” would be.

The housing need is based upon the requirements of North Somerset in general, which for the purposes of the planning application is considered ‘local’. In relation to the open market housing there would be no occupancy restrictions in relation to where people originate from. With respect to the affordable units, the emphasis would be for future residents to be from the village.

Housing mix/layout

There is a definite need for more affordable housing in the area, specifically more starter homes for young people as opposed to larger properties. The percentage of proposed affordable housing is far too low.

Currently the level of affordable provision is set at 30% of the total development, which is in accordance with planning policy.

The 'new homes' should be mostly affordable housing for first- 30% of the homes proposed would be affordable which

time buyers and should not be available to buy-to-let individuals who will most likely rent to students - 6 or 8 to a house. This would result in an additional 5 cars per house making on street parking worse than the current situation.

conforms to planning policy. The affordable units would not be available on a ‘buy to let’ basis.

There should be considerably more provision of housing for the over 65s. This could take the form of sheltered or assisted living housing for which there is a particular need in Churchill.

The development does not include retirement or specialist needs accommodation, as the priority is to provide residential accommodation that is accessible to all, including older members of the community.

The development should reflect the layout and densities of established housing on Pudding Pie lane (cul-de-sacs). The current proposal is too dense with 'rat run’ vehicle access.

There are no ‘rat runs’ within the proposals with one primary vehicle entrance and exit. The proposals focus on a number of cul-de-sac arrangements from this primary entrance to reflect the local urban grain.

The masterplan does not show 150 homes and any 3 storey dwellings would not fit in with existing residential housing in the local area. The scheme would look like an urban development in a rural setting.

There have never been any 3 storey dwellings proposed; all dwellings are 1 or two storeys.

The urban design needs carefully addressing to ensure scale and variety. The indicative layout is uninspiring - far more could be done to create a 'village style community'. Suggest the team visits 'Poundbury' or even 'Ellborough' near Banwell.

The scale of the references suggested are not comparable in terms of size or context to Langford.

We have already got one development of affordable housing in the area. These houses are for commuters. People who will not necessarily add anything to the village/community as a whole.

The priority will be for those individuals already resident in the village that are on the affordable housing register or already reside in the local area to occupy the affordable units.

Parking

Parking is a major problem in Pudding Pie Lane with cars parking too close to the junctions with Broadoak Road and Stock Lane. Double yellow lines are required to prevent this.

Noted, this would be an item the development could offer although parking within 10m of junction shouldn’t occur in the first place.

Parking in Pudding Pie lane by vet students and parents of students at Churchill Primary School causes congestion and in places it is impossible for two vehicles to pass, when cars are parked in the side of the road.

Noted, this is one of the reasons why access is preferred onto Stock Lane instead of Pudding Pie Lane. See earlier comments about misuse of Pudding Pie Lane/Ladymead Lane.

The school needs more off road parking. The school needs to implement its own Travel Plan and reduce the number of parents driving children short distances to school. We are unable to provide any additional parking for the school as the school site is already fully utilised. However the community facility is unlikely to be used in the morning so the parking available there could be used by parents who could then walk their children the remaining 300m to the school

Driveways backing onto Pudding Pie lane will restrict parking for current residents of the road.

Parking does not currently occur on the north side of Pudding Pie Lane where the driveways are proposed.

Community facilities

Is a community hall required? We have the Memorial hall, skittle alley & football club house. I hope the idea of a community hall is not seen to replace the Memorial Hall as that is a memorial to those fallen in the war which should remain the focal point of the village.

The Parish Plan recognises that the existing community hall is in need of major refurbishment so it is for this reason that a new fit for purpose facility is included in the proposals. The final form of any community facility will be subject to negotiation with the Parish Council.

There already is a community hall and I cannot see a need for a new one. The existing hall does, however, require refurbishment and upgrading.

The refurbishment of existing facilities could be undertaken instead of providing a new community hall.

The size of the community centre is not sufficient if it is expected to serve the whole of Churchill and Langford’s community needs. The size indicated appears to service the new houses only. This would not help integration between people from the new development and existing villagers

The proposed community hall is considered to be of an appropriate size and would serve the needs of all residents in the village and not just those associated with the new development.

There is already a play area and open spaces in the village. The play area and open space is to serve residents associated with the new development as well as the wider community.

The children’s access to the play area is dangerous due to the need to cross roads.

The children’s play area has shared surface crossing points and is accessed by a pedestrian/cycle route across the site to maximise safety. There will inevitably be a requirement for roads to be crossed at locations but this has been reduced within the design.

The children's play area and public open space will only benefit The play area and open space is to serve residents associated

those living in the proposed housing. These facilities should be provided closer to Pudding Pie Lane therefore providing easier access for all.

with the new development as well as the wider community.

The community building should be used to accommodate a youth club or pre-school facilities as those in the Memorial Hall are not ideal.

The community building could be used to accommodate a youth club or pre-school activities.

A link to the Strawberry Line should be considered to allow safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists.

Andy Jenner

A Post Office would be very useful for provide banking as well as postal facilities as there are no such facilities within reasonable walking distance.

North Somerset Council’s planning policy maintains a sequential approach to the location of new shops, with a priority being their location in existing centres. The application site is therefore not considered appropriate in this respect for such facilities.

There is only one shop in Langford, so additional provision on the development would benefit current residents of Langford.

See above.

The community building should provide facilities for young and old residents.

There would be no restrictions on who can use the community building.

Bearing in mind there is already a community hall in Langford and nearby Churchill I would have thought there were more appropriate community facilities that could be provided. It may be worth considering having a larger green space/play area, or some form of commercial offering such as a café/takeaway or restaurant or indoor soft play, or a contribution to improve the existing village hall.

The Parish Plan recognises that the existing community hall is in need of major refurbishment so it is for this reason that a new fit for purpose facility is included in the proposals. The final form of any community facility will be subject to negotiation with the Parish Council.

What we do not have is a great deal fitness facilities. See above.

Green belt/conservation/village boundary

This site is good farm land and should not be used for development.

It is acknowledged that the land constitutes good farm land, however the resulting benefits of this development are considered to outweigh this loss.

Would the trees subject to preservation orders be affected by the development?

No trees subject to preservation orders would be detrimentally affected by the development.

Is this a Green belt or conservation area? The site is not located in the Green Belt or a conservation area.

Would the university be able to give up land by Stock Lane to The university controls sufficient land outside of the conservation

enable road widening if it is in a conservation area? area to facilitate the road widening.

Consideration needs to be given to the cumulative impacts of 2 other housing developments that could go ahead and also 2 or 3 solar farms being planned in the local area. This development would lead to an urbanisation and industrialisation of green belt land, only 1 km away from the Mendip Hills AONB. This is unacceptable. It is unfair to consult in isolation ignoring all the other plans in the pipeline. The community need to be consulted on all these impacts together.

Other committed development i.e. that which benefits from planning permission, where relevant, has been considered in the supporting technical documentation. The Landscape Visual Appraisal that accompanies the planning application confirms that the development would not result in any detrimental impacts to the Mendip Hills AONB.

Flooding/drainage

There is no provision for the holding on site and attenuation of flow of storm water runoff into the offsite drainage system. A new, large impermeable surface will create extra rapid runoff.

Soakaway drainage is the first option or if this does not become practical on the necessary scale then on site attenuation to green field runoff will be designed.

A safe sewage scheme has not been made clear on the plans. There is an existing foul sewer crossing the site, discussions are ongoing with Wessex Water concerning this. Te site will only generate around 6.5l/s peak flow based on industry standard calculations.

Localised flooding at both ends of the village is an issue now. How will this be affected with more development?

The site will either discharge to the underlying aquifer or be attenuated to green field runoff to ensure no worsening of the current situation.

There is already flooding on Stock Lane now. This will be made worse by the development. The road is already frequently closed/blocked because of flooding.

See earlier comments.

The local sewage pumping station is currently at capacity and has to be emptied twice a week by tanker. The drains cannot cope with surface water so Pudding Pie Lane floods. When the sewage is bad that also floods people’s homes.

See above the pumping station we will discharge to is the Blackmoor Road (15580) pumping station to the north of the site. The pumping station conveys foul drainage from the Langford, Lower Langford and Stock catchment to Banwell within onwards gravity flow for eventual treatment at Wessex Water’s Sewage treatment works at Bleadon.

The existing sewage system in this area cannot cope at this moment. Will a complete new upgrade to the system be funded by the university?

No.

Miscellaneous:

Concern that this proposal may set a precedent for other development in the locality.

Any future planning applications would be considered on their own merits having regard to prevailing planning policy.

Who will maintain the public spaces? It is currently envisaged that a private management company would maintain the public spaces, paid for by the university.

The development will result in the loss of flora and fauna. Detailed ecological surveys have shown the site to be of overall limited ecological value. There will be limited impacts on better quality hedgerows. Habitat connectivity will be retained through the site and new planting will increase species diversity and benefit a range of faunal species.

The development is too close to the woodland off Jubilee Lane, resulting in an adverse impact on woodland fauna and flora.

No significant adverse impacts on this woodland have been identified. The woodland is not subject to any form of statutory protection and does not form part of a locally designated site for nature conservation, nor does it benefit from open public access. A strengthened landscape buffer is proposed at the northern boundary of the site, close to the woodland, which will negate potential impacts from increased lighting at the woodland edge.

There are no safe cycle routes. See earlier comments regarding the Strawberry Line.

There are not enough safe cycle links and where do they go exactly?

See earlier comments regarding the Strawberry Line.

The only local food shop is Budgens with limited car parking. The development would cause an additional burden on the shop and users of it.

It is hoped that local residents will use the Budgens store in support of local services. However the store is within walking distance and if the traffic conditions are as bad as everyone suggests then it will be faster to walk than to drive.

There will be additional noise and air pollution as a result of the increased traffic which will affect the rural lifestyle enjoyed by residents who consciously choose to live here.

The change in traffic volumes is not great enough to make a material difference to noise or emissions in the area.

Why is there no 'buffer' - landscaped or otherwise, on the Pudding Pie Lane edge of the development?

Pudding Pie lane is an established residential road. The landscape buffer is proposed to Jubilee lane due to its rural character.

What safeguards will be put into the plans to prevent the entrance to the proposed community hall off Pudding Pie Lane

The suggested design ensures that this could not happen with residential properties and a pedestrian/ cycle route ring fencing

becoming another access point to the site? This would be very hazardous with the additional traffic in Pudding Pie Lane affecting the school and surgery causing traffic flow difficulties.

the proposed location for the community hall.

university of bristol land at pudding pie lane, langford · university of bristol – land at...

Documents