Developer accused of ‘ignoring’ village
PUBLISHED: 11:00 01 September 2015
A PLANNING application which could see 60 homes being built on fields in Yatton has been submitted to North Somerset Council, leading campaigners to accuse a housing developer of ‘ignoring’ people’s views.
The application was submitted by developer Taylor Wimpey and concerns fields off Stowey Road, close to the Hangstones pavilion and playing fields.
The scheme is set to include provision for 30 per cent affordable homes, although 28 houses overall will have four or more bedrooms.
It will also include open space for walking and aims to create a ‘pedestrian friendly, neighbourly environment’.
In addition, Taylor Wimpey has said it will include a ‘financial contribution’ towards both primary and secondary education in the area and potential traffic management works on Stowey Road as part of the development’s section 106 agreement, which will allocate money to the council to mitigate the development’s effect.
Taylor Wimpey said as part of the application: “The proposed residential development aims to respond sensitively to the architectural heritage of Yatton village while also creating a strong sense of place with an individual character and identity.
“The proposed development site is in a sustainable location with good access to services and facilities, and is well placed to access public transport.
“The proposed scheme will form an extension to the existing residential area already served by Stowey Road and it will not, therefore, alter the way in which local roads are already used.”
Concerns were also raised at a public consultation event in June about traffic and a lack of infrastructure in the village, among other issues – and it is these consultation concerns which campaigners have accused Taylor Wimpey of ‘ignoring’.
A spokesman for housing action group No Moor Development said: “What is the point of a consultation procedure if the opinions of the community are ignored?
“Yatton residents were asked if there were enough facilities and services in the area to support the Taylor Wimpey proposals and the resounding response was ‘no’.”