September 2020 |
| ||
Camels’ Eye
Highways England (HE) engineers spent three years planning and designing a new dual carriageway for the A303 between Hazlegrove and Podimore. They are confident that they know best - roads are their business - so when our Parish Councils called for major changes to the proposed junction layout at Hazlegrove and for the existing A303 to be retained as a parallel road for local traffic they simply weren’t interested. But the man at the top takes a different view: the Secretary of State for Transport who has the final say has told HE that he “is minded to refuse” their planning application as it stands.
Could do better
The minister was briefed by the Examining Authority (a couple of planning inspectors) whose 500-page report lists the application’s shortcomings in great detail. It describes as “unfortunate” HE’s dismissal of the Parish Councils’ ideas, it criticises the refusal to countenance a parallel road and it recommends that the application be refused. The Minister himself cites arguments put forward by the Parish Councils among his reasons for considering refusal:
Our Parish Councils strongly support the scheme in principle but have major reservations about the design and they “wholeheartedly applaud” the Minister’s stance. Likewise they broadly welcome the Examiners’ report but they are seriously concerned about the design of the junction at Hazlegrove - so much so that apparently they would rather see the scheme as a whole turned down than go ahead with the junction as currently proposed, confident that if this were to happen a new scheme with an improved junction design could be submitted and approved without undue delay.
Ouch!
The County Council sees things differently. It is dismayed at the prospect of the scheme being turned down and believes that its benefits to the region as a whole would far outweigh any harm. And unsurprisingly Highways England itself is highly critical of details in the Examiners’ report, noting drily that “The Examining Authority is not a highway designer”.
Déjà vu all over again?
What next? Will we actually get our road this time? Or will this scheme join its two predecessors on the scrapheap? Your guess is as good as mine. Interested parties have been given until 16th September to have their final say and the Minister has promised to make his final decision by 20th November. At least no one can accuse us of not getting on with things in this country!
P.P-C.
Highways England (HE) engineers spent three years planning and designing a new dual carriageway for the A303 between Hazlegrove and Podimore. They are confident that they know best - roads are their business - so when our Parish Councils called for major changes to the proposed junction layout at Hazlegrove and for the existing A303 to be retained as a parallel road for local traffic they simply weren’t interested. But the man at the top takes a different view: the Secretary of State for Transport who has the final say has told HE that he “is minded to refuse” their planning application as it stands.
Could do better
The minister was briefed by the Examining Authority (a couple of planning inspectors) whose 500-page report lists the application’s shortcomings in great detail. It describes as “unfortunate” HE’s dismissal of the Parish Councils’ ideas, it criticises the refusal to countenance a parallel road and it recommends that the application be refused. The Minister himself cites arguments put forward by the Parish Councils among his reasons for considering refusal:
- The inconvenience and danger for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders forced to make long detours and/or use an unlit underpass to get from one side of the A303 to the other;
- Loss of trade for Mattia Diner, Camel Hill Service Station, the A303 Bakery, Wayne’s Bistro and other businesses when the existing A303 ceases to be a through road;
- Fly-tipping and other anti-social activity on the Camel Hill section of the old A303 when it is blocked off and becomes a dead end;
- The impact of traffic noise on properties close to the new road.
Our Parish Councils strongly support the scheme in principle but have major reservations about the design and they “wholeheartedly applaud” the Minister’s stance. Likewise they broadly welcome the Examiners’ report but they are seriously concerned about the design of the junction at Hazlegrove - so much so that apparently they would rather see the scheme as a whole turned down than go ahead with the junction as currently proposed, confident that if this were to happen a new scheme with an improved junction design could be submitted and approved without undue delay.
Ouch!
The County Council sees things differently. It is dismayed at the prospect of the scheme being turned down and believes that its benefits to the region as a whole would far outweigh any harm. And unsurprisingly Highways England itself is highly critical of details in the Examiners’ report, noting drily that “The Examining Authority is not a highway designer”.
Déjà vu all over again?
What next? Will we actually get our road this time? Or will this scheme join its two predecessors on the scrapheap? Your guess is as good as mine. Interested parties have been given until 16th September to have their final say and the Minister has promised to make his final decision by 20th November. At least no one can accuse us of not getting on with things in this country!
P.P-C.
July / August 2020 |
| ||
Camels’ Eye
Lotus eating is all very well but we’re active social animals and it’s good to wake up, smell the coffee and jump back into the water. Not that anyone strayed far from the brink, what with all the surfing, streaming, googling, zooming, skyping and foraging that’s kept us fed, watered, entertained and in touch over the past months.
Don’t Worry, Be Happy!
The proposal to build two new houses in the field beyond Queen Camel Memorial Hall is still making waves. The Parish Council and the Hall Trustees (+ c.150 folk who signed their petition) are worried about the narrow access road and the safety of pedestrians, especially the many young and old who use the Hall and footpath. But perhaps we shouldn’t fret. If the planners and developers can work out a safe solution acceptable to County Highways, County Rights of Way and the District Council Highways Consultant - the joint guardians of highway safety and the law - then all will be well. And if they can’t the application will be turned down. No worries!
Vox populi
That’s all well and good but many residents are upset about the very idea of a couple of houses on the edge of the village in the corner of a field where people like to walk, and the District Council has received 120 comments objecting. And how many in favour? …Er, none - unless you count the 5 parish councillors who voted to recommend approval. At 120-5 it’s pretty obvious who represents ‘the village’. Or is it? Four out of every five Queen Camel electors haven’t bothered to comment at all. Maybe they just don’t care. Or could it be that having just elected Parish Councillors to decide what’s in the best interests of the parish they’re happy to let them get on with it? You might well think that but I couldn’t possibly comment.
Cake
The map on page 28 of Queen Camel’s draft Neighbourhood Plan (http://queencamelpc.org.uk/parish-plan/) shows a settlement boundary drawn round the main body of the village as tightly as a Victorian corset and for much the same reason, to shape reality to fit an ideal. And just as women eventually cast aside their corsets in favour of growth, freedom and a more natural look, so the confines of the Queen Camel settlement boundary were breached by developments like the Medical Centre, Roman Way, the new School and now the proposal to build 43 houses along West Camel Road. But we can cherish ideals without always living up to them, and when the independent examiner reviewing our Neighbourhood Plan recommended that the fixed settlement boundary be scrapped because it does not comply with the more elastic approach of the South Somerset Local Plan the result was outrage. Some fear that without the discipline of a settlement boundary Queen Camel will lose its shape and its character and then everything will go to pot. The Parish Council accepts that we have to comply with the Local Plan but has asked the District Council to let us keep the settlement boundary anyway. Are we trying to have our cake and eat it? Will the District Council be able to square the circle? And what will happen to our Neighbourhood Plan? Watch this space!
P.P-C.
Lotus eating is all very well but we’re active social animals and it’s good to wake up, smell the coffee and jump back into the water. Not that anyone strayed far from the brink, what with all the surfing, streaming, googling, zooming, skyping and foraging that’s kept us fed, watered, entertained and in touch over the past months.
Don’t Worry, Be Happy!
The proposal to build two new houses in the field beyond Queen Camel Memorial Hall is still making waves. The Parish Council and the Hall Trustees (+ c.150 folk who signed their petition) are worried about the narrow access road and the safety of pedestrians, especially the many young and old who use the Hall and footpath. But perhaps we shouldn’t fret. If the planners and developers can work out a safe solution acceptable to County Highways, County Rights of Way and the District Council Highways Consultant - the joint guardians of highway safety and the law - then all will be well. And if they can’t the application will be turned down. No worries!
Vox populi
That’s all well and good but many residents are upset about the very idea of a couple of houses on the edge of the village in the corner of a field where people like to walk, and the District Council has received 120 comments objecting. And how many in favour? …Er, none - unless you count the 5 parish councillors who voted to recommend approval. At 120-5 it’s pretty obvious who represents ‘the village’. Or is it? Four out of every five Queen Camel electors haven’t bothered to comment at all. Maybe they just don’t care. Or could it be that having just elected Parish Councillors to decide what’s in the best interests of the parish they’re happy to let them get on with it? You might well think that but I couldn’t possibly comment.
Cake
The map on page 28 of Queen Camel’s draft Neighbourhood Plan (http://queencamelpc.org.uk/parish-plan/) shows a settlement boundary drawn round the main body of the village as tightly as a Victorian corset and for much the same reason, to shape reality to fit an ideal. And just as women eventually cast aside their corsets in favour of growth, freedom and a more natural look, so the confines of the Queen Camel settlement boundary were breached by developments like the Medical Centre, Roman Way, the new School and now the proposal to build 43 houses along West Camel Road. But we can cherish ideals without always living up to them, and when the independent examiner reviewing our Neighbourhood Plan recommended that the fixed settlement boundary be scrapped because it does not comply with the more elastic approach of the South Somerset Local Plan the result was outrage. Some fear that without the discipline of a settlement boundary Queen Camel will lose its shape and its character and then everything will go to pot. The Parish Council accepts that we have to comply with the Local Plan but has asked the District Council to let us keep the settlement boundary anyway. Are we trying to have our cake and eat it? Will the District Council be able to square the circle? And what will happen to our Neighbourhood Plan? Watch this space!
P.P-C.
June 2020 |
| ||
Camels’ Eye
It has been going on a bit, and whether you’re enjoying the dream or enduring the nightmare you may feel ready to turn away from media miserabilists and get back to traditional country pursuits: talking about the neighbours, complaining about the traffic and arguing about Planning applications.
Canaries and cars
The Police may not want us wasting their time by snitching on our neighbours but Neighbourhood Watch is always there - the clue’s in the name. And it’s all very well supermarket vans, farm vehicles and cyclists hogging the roads – after all we have to keep eating and people need to get out - but the cars are returning and once again our hills are alive with the sound of honking as drivers with quick wits and short fuses reproach their slower, duller brethren for not giving way.
Horses for courses
And then there’s Planning. We are all heavily invested in our home parishes, emotionally as well as financially, but each of us sees them differently, depending on individual circumstances, interests and tastes. And when the people we talk to share our views we can easily assume that the many hundreds of other people in the parish share them too. So when we discover that there are others who see things very differently it can be a shock. It all depends on where you stand, as three recent planning applications in Queen Camel show.
P.P-C.
It has been going on a bit, and whether you’re enjoying the dream or enduring the nightmare you may feel ready to turn away from media miserabilists and get back to traditional country pursuits: talking about the neighbours, complaining about the traffic and arguing about Planning applications.
Canaries and cars
The Police may not want us wasting their time by snitching on our neighbours but Neighbourhood Watch is always there - the clue’s in the name. And it’s all very well supermarket vans, farm vehicles and cyclists hogging the roads – after all we have to keep eating and people need to get out - but the cars are returning and once again our hills are alive with the sound of honking as drivers with quick wits and short fuses reproach their slower, duller brethren for not giving way.
Horses for courses
And then there’s Planning. We are all heavily invested in our home parishes, emotionally as well as financially, but each of us sees them differently, depending on individual circumstances, interests and tastes. And when the people we talk to share our views we can easily assume that the many hundreds of other people in the parish share them too. So when we discover that there are others who see things very differently it can be a shock. It all depends on where you stand, as three recent planning applications in Queen Camel show.
- Neighbours have objected to proposals for a large housing estate off the West Camel Road but no one else seemed much bothered and the Parish Council (following the draft Neighbourhood Plan) voted in favour 7-1-1, only asking that the number of houses be reduced from 43 to 30.
- Conversely the Parish Council and neighbours alike opposed the building of 9 houses beyond England’s Mead, mainly on account of poor access and fear of flooding. The Planning Officer supported the development but a District Council committee voted it down by 9 votes to 3.
- And now the Parish Council (by 5 votes to 3) has given qualified support to a more modest proposal for two houses in the corner of the field beyond the Memorial Hall but an impressive 43 individuals (and counting) have registered objections.
P.P-C.
May 2020 - Camels Eye
Camels’ Eye
It has been going on a bit, and whether you’re enjoying the dream or enduring the nightmare you may feel ready to turn away from media miserabilists and get back to traditional country pursuits: talking about the neighbours, complaining about the traffic and arguing about Planning applications.
Canaries and cars
The Police may not want us wasting their time by snitching on our neighbours but Neighbourhood Watch is always there - the clue’s in the name. And it’s all very well supermarket vans, farm vehicles and cyclists hogging the roads – after all we have to keep eating and people need to get out - but the cars are returning and once again our hills are alive with the sound of honking as drivers with quick wits and short fuses reproach their slower, duller brethren for not giving way.
Horses for courses
And then there’s Planning. We are all heavily invested in our home parishes, emotionally as well as financially, but each of us sees them differently, depending on individual circumstances, interests and tastes. And when the people we talk to share our views we can easily assume that the many hundreds of other people in the parish share them too. So when we discover that there are others who see things very differently it can be a shock. It all depends on where you stand, as three recent planning applications in Queen Camel show.
P.P-C.
It has been going on a bit, and whether you’re enjoying the dream or enduring the nightmare you may feel ready to turn away from media miserabilists and get back to traditional country pursuits: talking about the neighbours, complaining about the traffic and arguing about Planning applications.
Canaries and cars
The Police may not want us wasting their time by snitching on our neighbours but Neighbourhood Watch is always there - the clue’s in the name. And it’s all very well supermarket vans, farm vehicles and cyclists hogging the roads – after all we have to keep eating and people need to get out - but the cars are returning and once again our hills are alive with the sound of honking as drivers with quick wits and short fuses reproach their slower, duller brethren for not giving way.
Horses for courses
And then there’s Planning. We are all heavily invested in our home parishes, emotionally as well as financially, but each of us sees them differently, depending on individual circumstances, interests and tastes. And when the people we talk to share our views we can easily assume that the many hundreds of other people in the parish share them too. So when we discover that there are others who see things very differently it can be a shock. It all depends on where you stand, as three recent planning applications in Queen Camel show.
- Neighbours have objected to proposals for a large housing estate off the West Camel Road but no one else seemed much bothered and the Parish Council (following the draft Neighbourhood Plan) voted in favour 7-1-1, only asking that the number of houses be reduced from 43 to 30.
- Conversely the Parish Council and neighbours alike opposed the building of 9 houses beyond England’s Mead, mainly on account of poor access and fear of flooding. The Planning Officer supported the development but a District Council committee voted it down by 9 votes to 3.
- And now the Parish Council (by 5 votes to 3) has given qualified support to a more modest proposal for two houses in the corner of the field beyond the Memorial Hall but an impressive 43 individuals (and counting) have registered objections.
P.P-C.
March 2020 - Camels Eye |
| ||
February 2020 - Camels Eye |
| ||
Camels eye - September 2019 |
| ||
Camels eye - July 2019 |
| ||
Camels eye - June 2019 |
| ||
Camels eye - May 2019 |
| ||
Camels eye - March 2019 |
| ||
Camels eye - October 2018 |
| ||
Camels eye - June 2018 |
| ||