EASTON-IN-GORDANO PARISH COUNCIL

 

Julie Smart                                                                                                  1 Monmouth Road

Clerk                                                                                                            Pill

Tel/Fax:  01275 374442                                                                              North Somerset

Email: eigparish.council@btinternet.com                                                  BS20 0AY

 

                                                                                                                     7 March 2007

 

For the attention of Ms Hazel Hetherington

 

Government Office of the South West

2 Rivergate

Temple Quay

BRISTOL

BS1 6ED

 

 

Dear Ms Hetherington

 

NORTH SOMERSET REPLACEMENT LOCAL PLAN

 

I wrote to you on 7th December 2006 expressing the views of this Parish Council on the proposal to remove an area of land in this parish and the neighbouring parish of Portbury from the Green Belt to allow for expansion by the Royal Portbury Dock.

 

As I stated in the previous letter, we understand that you, with powers delegated by the Secretary of State, have the ability in exceptional circumstances to direct a Local Authority to amend its Local Plan. Since North Somerset Council (NSC) finally adopted its Replacement Plan (RLP) on 20th February 2007 we are now requesting you to do this.

 

I attach a copy of our previous letter as all the points in that still apply. However, the additional reasons we believe the circumstances justify our request are as follows.

 

  1. NSC officers misled Councillors in their recommendations prior to the final decision to adopt. Further Proposed Modifications to the RLP were made in December. These modifications were twofold; firstly to keep the land in Portbury in the Green Belt, and secondly to remove the land in this Parish from the Green Belt. The consultation on this asked people not to repeat objections they had made to the previous consultation, which proposed removing both pieces of land from the Green Belt. The previous consultation had resulted in hundreds of parishioners making objections, including a petition of nearly 1000 names. Responsible people obeyed the request with the last consultation not to repeat objections. Although the Further Proposed Modifications left the proposal regarding this Parish unchanged, the officers’ recommendations referred to the letters of support from Portbury for the proposal to leave the Portbury land within the Green Belt and also referred to the fact that, apart from the further objections made by the Parish Council, only one or two objections had been received from within the parish. However, no reference was made to the huge number of previous objections made to what was essentially the same proposal for this Parish that had been made previously.

 

  1. NSC gave no consideration to the Parish Plan (published in 2006), which we understand central government now requires local authorities to do. There was a large response (over 65%) to questions in the questionnaire on which the Plan was based regarding the Green Belt. Of these 81% wanted the boundaries of the Green Belt to remain the same. Parish Plans would seem to have little point if they are ignored in this way.

 

 

 

 

. . . / cont.

 

-2-

 

 

 

  1. The community was given a public pledge by the Chairman of the Bristol Port Company in 1992, when the coal yard at the Port was established, that there would be no further encroachment by the Port into the Parish. The community welcomed and accepted this pledge, which would now appear to be meaningless should the proposal within the RLP take effect.

 

  1. The points made in the previous letter about the Port’s proven failure, recognised by the Inspector and the previous Secretary of State after a 2003 Inquiry, to demonstrate a need for more land and not to be making efficient and effective use of its existing land can be further emphasised by the fact that one of the main car distributors at the Port has indicated plans to move operations to Europe within the next few years, thus freeing large areas of land currently used for car storage.

 

  1. The main building in the area proposed for removal from the Green Belt, Courthouse Farm, is a listed building of historic interest, as it was the headquarters of Judge Jefferies, the “hanging judge”, and supposedly the site of the local gallows with several of the victims buried on the land. This fact, although mentioned by several objectors, was completely ignored by NSC in all its documentation.

 

  1. NSC has justified its decision by referring to various safeguards that will need to be met before the Port is able to develop the land in question. Several conditions imposed on previous developments for the benefit of the community e.g. the height of the coal tip and the sprinkling of the coal, have not been enforced by NSC. This gives us no confidence in future safeguards being adhered to.

 

  1. This Parish, now singled out for further encroachment by the Port, is the one that has been most affected by the Royal Portbury Dock since its establishment under the West Dock Act.

 

For these reasons I am writing on behalf of this Parish Council to make a formal request for you to direct NSC to amend the RLP by deleting the proposal to remove land in the Parish of Easton-in-Gordano from the Green Belt for Port use.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Julie Smart

Clerk to Easton-in-Gordano Parish Council

 

 

cc:   Rt. Hon. Ruth Kelly M.P.