Post by administrator on Aug 19, 2009 20:33:46 GMT
'Mendip District Council's Community Partnership duly considered the Local Development Framework recommendations for Wells last night and welcomed contributions from the public. Only two spoke and this is what a local Wookey resident said. In the event the chair and 11 Mendip councillors attending went into a 'breakout session' to agree how the officers' recommendations be taken forward. Most recommendations were adopted, some with amendments aimed at greater inclusivity. The outcome will be reported in the minutes of their next meeting, on 20th October, in Wells Town Hall, when they are due to discuss the Wells parish plan.
To Central Mendip Community Partnership 18th August 2009
‘I want to pose some difficulties that remain for Wells in particular that need to be taken forward into the next stage, before the paper you have before you is adopted without reservation.
‘The spatial vision for Wells predicts at the close of the plan period a 1/3 increase in population of Wells living in houses that, quote, ‘New development has been sensitive to their landscape setting and cultural heritage’*. And six hectares of, quote, ‘New employment space to the south of the city has allowed room for local firms to grow and new enterprises to be established’.
‘Only eight responded to the Question: Do you agree with the suggested vision for Wells? and four of these agreed. And four made other suggestions. Only five responded in favour of the proposed strategic objectives. This is a poor enough response with which to plan or claim support.
‘The vision for housing and new employment sites is not tenable because to achieve these on brown and greenfield land [owing to] the confined character, Wells will burst its development limits. I doubt the claim that it can, quote, ‘Ensure efficient use of previously developed land to limit the need for development on the city fringes that would be detrimental to its high value landscape’.
‘Indeed it will represent a major incursion into the encircling , neighbouring parish of St Cuthbert Out. That parish has not been engaged either by Wells City Council or adequately by MDC with these implications. A major review is necessary first to agree landscape constraints, if there is to be a change in development limits of Wells (first protected in 1937), and second, to review the workings of the two parish councils, if not an actual boundary review and possible raised administrative status of Wells parish council. Only then can the necessary agreement be reached on the needs of this most precious of Mendip’s towns.
‘Glastonbury is in fact similarly constrained and both Wells and Glastonbury share an established need for improved access to housing. It was for these reasons that it was proposed that MDC consider developing a [new] sixth urban centre in the district. That possibility has not been studied thus far as an option.
‘It is doubly worrying because the interests of Wells are especially well represented in the administration of MDC. Yet we have a still-born Wells parish plan after three years work.
*Quotations are from the LDF, written as if speaking at the close of the plan period in 2026.
John Winstone RIBA IHBC
To Central Mendip Community Partnership 18th August 2009
‘I want to pose some difficulties that remain for Wells in particular that need to be taken forward into the next stage, before the paper you have before you is adopted without reservation.
‘The spatial vision for Wells predicts at the close of the plan period a 1/3 increase in population of Wells living in houses that, quote, ‘New development has been sensitive to their landscape setting and cultural heritage’*. And six hectares of, quote, ‘New employment space to the south of the city has allowed room for local firms to grow and new enterprises to be established’.
‘Only eight responded to the Question: Do you agree with the suggested vision for Wells? and four of these agreed. And four made other suggestions. Only five responded in favour of the proposed strategic objectives. This is a poor enough response with which to plan or claim support.
‘The vision for housing and new employment sites is not tenable because to achieve these on brown and greenfield land [owing to] the confined character, Wells will burst its development limits. I doubt the claim that it can, quote, ‘Ensure efficient use of previously developed land to limit the need for development on the city fringes that would be detrimental to its high value landscape’.
‘Indeed it will represent a major incursion into the encircling , neighbouring parish of St Cuthbert Out. That parish has not been engaged either by Wells City Council or adequately by MDC with these implications. A major review is necessary first to agree landscape constraints, if there is to be a change in development limits of Wells (first protected in 1937), and second, to review the workings of the two parish councils, if not an actual boundary review and possible raised administrative status of Wells parish council. Only then can the necessary agreement be reached on the needs of this most precious of Mendip’s towns.
‘Glastonbury is in fact similarly constrained and both Wells and Glastonbury share an established need for improved access to housing. It was for these reasons that it was proposed that MDC consider developing a [new] sixth urban centre in the district. That possibility has not been studied thus far as an option.
‘It is doubly worrying because the interests of Wells are especially well represented in the administration of MDC. Yet we have a still-born Wells parish plan after three years work.
*Quotations are from the LDF, written as if speaking at the close of the plan period in 2026.
John Winstone RIBA IHBC