As an aide memoire for those who have kindly agreed to be on the Flower Rota for St. Julian’s Church we will publish a weekly reminder for the coming week’s named Flower arranger.
We are currently looking for 3 new co-opted governors* and 1 new parent governor**.
We are seeking interest in particular from anyone with:
• Knowledge and experience of premises and facilities management (including health and safety)
• Financial planning and management
• Contracting services and legal knowledge
• Educational grants
• Knowledge and experience of current educational landscape
You may just be passionate about children and education and willing to learn. Please get in contact.
Governors have a crucially important role in schools, overseeing how they are run strategically and setting outcomes.
In conjunction with the headteacher they set the school’s vision, ethos and strategic direction.
They act as ‘critical friend’ to the leadership team and provide advice and challenge.
They make sure that government legislation is applied in all matters.
They hold the headteacher to account for the educational performance of the school and its pupils
They ensure the school spends its money efficiently and wisely.
For further information see
http://www.nga.org.uk/Be-a-Governor.aspx
Much of the work of the governing body is done through a committee structure. At Freshford there are four committees with delegated powers to make decisions:
• Teaching & Learning
• Finance & Personnel
• Premises, Facilities and Communication
• Safeguarding
Governors are elected or appointed for a four-year term. They are expected to take a special interest in at least one committee area. The full governing body meets a minimum of 5 times a year with committee meetings taking place as necessary throughout the year.
If you are interested or know someone who might be interested in the first instance please contact either of the people below:
Helen Lorraine (Clerk to the Governors)
freshford_pri@BATHNES.GOV.UK 01225 723331
Alex Malir (Chair of Governors)
alex@malir.com 01225 722144
*Co-opted governors are invited to join the Full Governing Body by current governors.
** Parent governors are elected to the Full Governing Body by parents if there are more candidates than vacant posts
Dear Wellow Resident
20th November 2016
Following concerns raised in and around the meeting held last week at the village hall, on another planning matter, I thought I should let you see the exchange of correspondence I have been having with B&NES officers on this matter - and share some of my own thoughts.
One set of questions, as you may see below, has already been answered - but I am awaiting responses to others, specifically affecting traffic. I would hope to have further answers by tomorrow evening, which I can relay at the PC meeting. However, I think it very important that the PC meets with the Highway Officer involved - whose identity I am seeking - either in his/her offices or at a PC meeting. I will await guidance tomorrow at PC, but am very keen for this meeting to take place so that the officer is fully aware of the strength of feeling.
In the first instance however I would urge caution in assuming that the developers will get simply get all they want. On the contrary, they have a lot to prove - as will be evident if you read right through. There are a lot of constraints - not least the Wansdyke - and the three parties concerned have found it very difficult to reach agreement amongst themselves. On the other hand, that is not to say that we don't have to be prepared.
Perhaps I can say at an early stage in this message that I have always opposed this development - and voted against the Core Strategy. However, because a majority of councillors - cross-party - felt that if the Core Strategy were not approved it would make it easier for developers to get their way in the interim it was voted through. (A difficult decision for us all.)
My main reason for voting against was that the plateau was both in Green Belt and AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) - and as a consequence it should not be developed as a matter of principle.
Other issues however included the rural nature of both Combe Hay Lane and Southstoke Lane, which stood to be compromised, and the fact that the village of South Stoke was threatened by coalescence with Bath.
Some heed at least was taken of some of these points, and the two fields at the east end of the site were retained in the Green Belt - meaning that they should not be developed except in very special circumstances. The Government Planning Inspector reinforced this by ruling out access either on to Southstoke Lane (other than for the business element - which the developers were wanting to considerably increase aside from the housing element) or opposite the Cross Keys, where there had been talk of either traffic signals or a roundabout.
A major junction at the Cross Keys was roundly opposed not only by people in South Stoke but also by representatives of Combe Down, Odd Down and Combe Hay not only because it would constitute an immediate breach of the piece of Green Belt remaining (which would very likely lead in time to yet more houses) but also because it was thought inevitable that it would lead to rat-running through the new estate, however difficult one made it, thereby leading to more traffic through Combe Hay and Wellow.
Herewith the original questions I asked, of Simon de Beer - head of planning policy, together with the answers. Note that he deferred to the case officer appointed: Gwilym Jones. Note also that from the last conversation I had with officers - some weeks ago - the feeling was that, the way the developers were going (or rather not going) they would only be able to fit in some 280 houses max...
"Simon
Please see these postings on to Wellow's website.
Could you please comment on -
1 current thinking re maximum likely numbers - the last I heard you were looking at less than 300, never mind the 450 or 600 figures the developers have been pushing
2 is there any real sign that HFS/Bloor are reaching any form of agreement with either the football club and/or Sulis Manor?
3 the latest thoughts re the traffic arrangements on Combe Hay Lane. There is a worry that the new development will have right of way over people coming from Combe Hay and Wellow. Certainly, also, there is a feeling in Wellow that people should not be allowed to turn left out of the development, which would add to rat running through Wellow - already a major issue there.
Kind regards
Neil"
Response, from Gwilym:
"1 Current thinking re maximum likely numbers - the last I heard you were looking at less than 300, never mind the 450 or 600 figures the developers have been pushing
Core Strategy Policy B3a states: "Residential led mixed use development (to include 40% affordable housing) of around 300 dwellings, in the plan period. The site should be developed at an average density of 35-40dph. The figure of 300 dwellings is not a cap on development if all the placemaking principles can be met" [my emphasis]
The Council took a cautious approach on this location and it is considered that a scheme with a higher capacity, 100 to 150 additional dwellings, could come forward which still accords with the Core Strategy development requirements. This position was referred at the recent Place Making Plan Examination Hearing in September however the onus is on the developer to demonstrate how all the placemaking principles will be met.
The current proposals which are still at pre-application stage – an application for detailed planning permission for ‘Phase 1’ comprising around 180 dwellings on land west of Sulis Manor with access from Combe Hay Lane expected in early 2017 – would be in the context of a wider masterplan for the whole allocation which is likely to accommodate around 450 homes. This illustrative comprehensive masterplan was presented at the recent consultation event organised by the HFT, which also included their draft proposals for Phase 1.
2 Is there any real sign that HFS/Bloor are reaching any form of agreement with either the football club and/or Sulis Manor?
We have been told on numerous occasions that discussions are ongoing with Sulis Manor but things seem to have reached an impasse. The illustrative layout on the HFT/Sulis Down website reflects the initial high level proposals from Sulis Manor. In terms of the Football Club they have been in discussion with HFT (and attended meetings with the Council) and have stated they do not intend to move and do not want to be incorporated within any development proposals for the wider site.
3 The latest thoughts re the traffic arrangements on Combe Hay Lane. There is a worry that the new development will have right of way over people coming from Combe Hay and Wellow. Certainly, also, there is a feeling in Wellow that people should not be allowed to turn left out of the development, which would add to rat running through Wellow - already a major issue there.
Core Strategy Policy B3a and the accompanying Concept Diagram requires access from Combe Hay Lane only. The principle of an eastern access connecting with South Stoke Lane was considered at the Core Strategy Examination and specifically ruled out by the Inspector. HFT in their November 2015 public consultation event included an option with an eastern access however in their current proposals they have reverted to the access solution identified in the Core Strategy.
The current highway proposals show alterations to Combe Hay Lane with priority being given to access to the Sulis Down development over traffic coming up Combe Hay lane. These plans also show a left turn is available from the site access road onto Combe Hay Lane. I will relay your comments to the Highway Officer for comment."
Herewith my follow-up questions -
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Sulis Down development proposals-concerns over traffic arrangements
"Many thanks.
Not quite what we wanted to hear but very useful to know.
Who is the Highway Officer involved? Would they be prepared to come out to - for example - Wellow PC, if invited. It has been suggested that this development at its fullest extent would constitute the largest cul-de-sac in the district. Is that the case? How does is compare with K2 and Somerdale in Keynsham, for example? What if there were an emergency that blocked the access? Would there be emergency access via the business village on to Southstoke Lane?
Is it proposed that Combe Hay Lane be widened?
Kind regards
Neil
Cllr Neil Butters"
Some time ago a body called SOBA - South of Bath Alliance - was formed to fight this development. This included councillors from both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives who represented the - most affected - wards of Odd Down, Combe Down, Bathavon South, and Bathavon West (which includes Combe Hay).
After some period of inactivity (because nothing was happening) they recently produced this, which you might like to see -
"The Core Strategy requires as one of the Placemaking Principles:
Preparation of a comprehensive Masterplan, through public consultation, and to be agreed by the Council, reflecting best practice as embodied in ‘By Design’ (or successor guidance), ensuring that it is well integrated with neighbouring areas.
The Masterplan shows that the site will be developed in 4 different phases and that it will produce a total of 450 homes. We are concerned that the Masterplan does not include any proposals by the owners of the Sulis Manor site, so that it is not a comprehensive Masterplan for the entire site and that the planning application is being put forward before the Masterplan has been considered and agreed by the Council.
The number of homes proposed in the Masterplan represents an increase of 50% on top of the figure of 300 homes originally proposed for the whole site. Any proposal to deliver more than 300 dwellings on the site has to be supported by evidence to show that this can be achieved within the Council’s established ‘Placemaking Principles’. No evidence to support this has yet been made public.
The Core Strategy also requires the development to:
Protect the tree belt on the southern edge of the site and enhance with additional planting to ensure visual screening of the site from views to the south • Avoid or minimise detrimental impacts on (and provide enhancements to important landscape features and significant views): • the Cotswolds AONB • South Stoke Conservation area and its setting • The character of the Cam Brook valley and Sulis Manor Plateau • The character of South Stoke and Combe Hay Lanes • Midford Road and the Cross Keys junction including maintaining open rural views over the plateau • The Wansdyke Scheduled Monument • Medium and long distance views such as Upper Twinhoe and Baggridge Hill.
The layout for the 180 homes in the proposed planning application indicates that some will be sited inside the zone defined as having ‘high impact’ on the World Heritage Site and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty."
We are currently awaiting a date for a new meeting of SOBA. However, I have checked with the Chairman and he has confirmed that he would be delighted if Wellow could be represented at PC level.
My view overall is that the four B&NES wards concerned, including individual parishes, should stick together in the overall fight as far as possible - because that way we will have more clout.
I hope this helps, but feel free to let me know further what you think.
Kind regards
Neil
Cllr Neil Butters
