Richard Buxton Solicitors sent a letter to South Somerset District Council

Download Richard Buxton Solicitors' letter to SSDC.

Richard Buxton Solicitors sent a letter to South Somerset District Council:

Dear Sirs

Hadspen Estate – “The Newt” including proposals for Yarlington Lodge

We have been instructed by residents of Yarlington to consider the way proposals for development at the Newt have been progressed. We have been provided with an astonishingly long list of some 63 planning applications. We are also aware that the area concerned not only includes Hadspen House itself and surrounding land, but also nearby Shatwell Farm (connected to Hadspen by a new road), and on from there the village of Yarlington.

In these circumstances the question that immediately comes to mind is whether the overall Newt project has been subject to environmental impact assessment pursuant to the EIA Regulations 2017 (or predecessor regulations to similar effect), or even screened for same? The Newt is a substantial project covering a large area and falls within Schedule 2 paragraph 12(c) (where the screening threshold is only 0.5 ha). In this context, we note one of the many delegated reports stating

“Recent approvals at the site have allowed the comprehensive redevelopment of the gardens and parkland as a visitor attraction, and the change of use of the house and outbuildings to form a spa hotel. The proposed development would form a part of the wider visitor attraction at the estate. It is proposed that all public access will be via the main car park approved to serve the approved tourist attraction.”

Can you please provide copies of screening opinions in connection with the project and/or its component parts? As you are aware, EIA cannot be avoided by so-called "salami-slicing": see Case C-142/07 Ecologistas en Accion v A de Madrid, also C-2/07 Abraham v Wallonia.

Turning to Yarlington Lodge, we understand that there has been what might be described as an outcry from local people at the prospect of its becoming a conference etc. centre and it may be that the Estate is, sensibly, rethinking those. However, the concerns raised and investigations involved have given rise to serious concerns about the propriety of the planning process including the involvement of councillors yet with none of the various decisions relating to the Newt being dealt with by the Council’s planning committee, but rather delegated to officers. This requires explanation.

It is also necessary to confirm, please, that there has been no contact at all between elected members (whether members of the planning committee or others) and officers in relation to proposals at the Newt; and if contrary to that expectation there has been, full details.

In this regard we understand that one of your Councillors, Henry Hobhouse, indeed we believe he is Chair of the planning committee, sold land to the Newt for a nominal/unstated value enabling him to receive a valuable water supply. We understand he received hospitality provided by owners of the Newt in South Africa. If any of this is correct, full details, including details of any payments or cash equivalents, must be disclosed.

While writing, there is also some concern that accommodation intended for holiday lets (for example at Searts Barns, Welham) has been counted, even if not explicitly, towards satisfying the Council’s housing supply requirements. This would be inappropriate, and we trust you can confirm that concerns to that effect are misplaced.

The immediate reason for our instruction in this matter has been the failure of the Council to respond substantively to Freedom of Information requests raised, stemming from concerns about Yarlington Lodge. We refer to the email of 19.8.20 from Count Charles de Salis of Yarlington House, and the emailed letter of 17.8.20 from Adam Chichester-Clark of The Rookery, Yarlington (texts of both herewith for reference). We are aware that there was some (minimal) answer to the de Salis email, but despite continuing correspondence Mr Chichester-Clark has had none of his questions answered. Despite the coronavirus etc. difficulties which we are all living with it is hard to believe that the Council cannot go some way towards answering the requests made.

We have instructions to press for these. Please could you therefore immediately (by return, in any event by close of business on 14.12.20) advise “where you are” on the FoI responses. Absent firm confirmation that full answers and relevant documentation will be provided within two weeks (ie. by 23.12.20) we will refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. We would normally go first to your Monitoring Officer, but it appears from your website that the post is vacant. If as an alternative you can confirm if there is an Acting Monitoring Officer, and with contact details, we can contact that person instead.

As for the planning/EIA issue noted above please can we have a substantive response from your Head of Planning within the same time scale (23.12.20). (Matters seem to have been dealt with by several different planning officer, including those at the head of this letter: please could they between them ensure that is done.)

Yours faithfully

Richard Buxton Solicitors
Environmental, Planning & Public Law

Adam Chichester-Clark wrote to South Somerset FOI Team

Adam Chichester-Clark wrote to South Somerset FOI Team:

Dear FOI Team,

In your email of 7 October 2020 (below) you explained that you had asked the Planning department for an update on the “status and timeline” of my FOI Request, which you have categorised as urgent. I have heard nothing from you since then. The statutory period within which I was to receive a reply to my FOI Request dated 17 August 2020 expired on 14 September 2020. 

Although I have said that I would accept the information sought by way of rolling disclosure, I have not receive any of the information/documentation sought or even details of the extent of the search which the FOI intends to carry out in order to obtain it, despite my offer to agree a common approach. 

In circumstances in which no objection has been taken in principle to the provision of any of the categories of information/documentation sought, your team should by now have identified an individual(s), who will responsible for undertaking the search, and that person should in turn have identified the electronic and hard copy storage systems and devices in which they intend to carry out the search for the information sought.

While I am sympathetic to the Planning Department’s high workload, it is incumbent on your team: (i) to identify each systems/devices in which you intend to carry out the search (pcs mobiles, tablets etc..); and (ii) to provide any documentation falling with the categories, even if, as I say it is by way of rolling disclosure.

I respectfully ask you to provide a substantive response by no later than 4 December 2020, failing I will be obliged to make a complaint to the Service Delivery Team in the first instance and/or to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Thank you very much for your help in this matter.

Best

Adam

Adam Chichester-Clark replied to South Somerset FOI Team

Adam Chichester-Clark replied to South Somerset FOI Team:

Dear FOI Team,

Thank you very much for your acknowledgement of my FOIA application dated 17 August 2020 and for your gracious apology for the delay in its acknowledgment in your email of 23 September.

As I said, I am genuinely sympathetic to any delay caused by the pandemic. However, may I also just say that the FOI Team’s help in providing the information and documentation sought in the Application is of real and urgent importance to myself and, indeed, many others in Yarlington and the prescribed statutory period for provision of the information required expired on 14 September 2020. It is, therefore, an application that I must now respectfully ask you to deal with fully and as soon as possible.

As a first step, I would ask you to tell me whether the FOI Team intends to comply with my requests in principle and, if so, what steps it intends to take in order to search for and collate the information sought under the categories in my request. I’d be more than happy to try and agree a common approach, if that would help you. Perhaps you could also tell me when you expect to be able to start providing the documentation requested. I would be happy to receive it on a rolling basis (i.e. as and when you have completed each of the necessary searches), if that would assist.

Can I ask you to come back to me as soon as possible and by no later than 4 pm next Friday, 9 October 2020.

Thank you,

Best

Adam

Charles de Salis replied to the South Somerset Freedom of Information (FOI) Team:

Charles de Salis replied to the South Somerset Freedom of Information (FOI) Team:

Dear FOI Team,

I write to thank you for your answer to my e-mail.

I note that it does not address many of the questions raised on behalf of the village and answers others somewhat inadequately by your own admission.

I will be in contact with you again when the village has appointed a Solicitor to act on its behalf in this matter of fundamental importance to its future.

Yours sincerely

Charles de Salis

South Somerset FOI Team replied to Adam Chichester-Clark

South Somerset FOI Team replied to Adam Chichester-Clark:

Dear Mr Chichester-Clark

I acknowledge receipt of your Freedom of Information request received on 17 August 2020. You will receive a response direct within the statutory timescale. Please be aware that there may be delays in answering your request due to our staff being diverted to delivery of front line services.

Apologies for the delay,
FOI Team

South Somerset FOI Team replied to Charles de Salis

South Somerset FOI Team replied to Charles de Salis

Dear Mr de Salis,

Please find below the response to your Freedom of information request received on 19/08/2020.

We have struggled to find the information to respond to this FOI because so many officers who would have held the information have left the authority. Therefore some of the information has been provided by Councillors who cannot recall exact dates. My apologies for this.

In relation to your declaration query, we understand that the planning applications were determined prior to the visits. The visits were to see the results of the applications. In most cases SSDC paid for the visits, so there is no need to make declaration. In the case of the Fire Night, if hospitality is less than £25 there is no need to declare.

Kind regards
FOI Team

Adam Chichester-Clark's second letter to South Somerset Freedom of Information (FOI) Team

Adam Chichester-Clark's second letter to South Somerset Freedom of Information (FOI) Team:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer my email below and Freedom of Information Application attached thereto. Regrettably, I have not received the documents requested within the relevant statutory period (i.e. by 14 September 2020) or even the courtesy of an acknowledgment.
I suspect that the delay may be due to the impact of the pandemic and, if so, I am sympathetic. However, in the circumstances, I would be very grateful if you would now acknowledge receipt of my application and let me know what date you intend to supply me with the documents I have requested.

Yours faithfully
Adam Chichester-Clark

Email exchange between Paul Rawson and Lucinda Lambourne continued

PR replied to LL:

"We will carefully reform our plans for future use, but have some urgent priorities elsewhere for now, so when we are ready in a few months, we will of course bring them to you in order to give you opportunity to comment further."

Email exchange involving Lucinda Lambourne and Paul Rawson regarding the Yarlington Lodge Drive

PR sent LL email regarding the Yarlington Lodge drive and in the email stated:

"Following your comments, and those of some other neighbours, plus the present sharp reduction in the market for events, which may last many years, we have decided on a different approach. We will retain the buildings in residential format, with no events venue at all."

LL replied to PR: 

"That is really good news you have moved away from an events venue and glad that Yarlington Lodge and the other properties will continue to be for residential use. I hope the proposals will be in line with the current size and scale of the existing homes and that the occupiers can be part of the Yarlington village community which is what we all want. I look forward to seeing your plans."

Freedom Of Information Request filed and submitted by Charles de Salis

Freedom Of Information Request filed and submitted by Charles de Salis:

Dear Sir or Madam,

This letter is an application to the SSDC under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, for all information relating to offers of hospitality and gifts made by the Newt in Somerset, and its associated companies, to members of the Council and its employees.

It is written on behalf of a number of local residents who are concerned for transparency and accountability in the Planning process, and directly as a result of receiving reliable information that more than two current members of the Area East Committee have stayed gratis at the Newt. I should stress that our concerns extend to all current, past and future Planning processes, in relation to all developments by the Newt within Cary and Tower Wards.

Specifically, in relation to meals, accommodation or other hospitality, we request all information (in whatever form- verbal, electronic and written) held by yourselves, which relates to invitations issued at any time by the Newt, by Emily Estate, by their associated companies in Italy and South Africa, or by their employees and principals, made to any Councillor, Parish Councillor or any employee of the Council, or to their immediate families. In each case, this should include the date of issue, issuer, response if any, whether such invitations have been taken up, on what date, by whom, and any declarations of interest that have resulted together with the dates on which they were made.

In addition, we request details, in the same terms as above, of any and all gifts offered (and of gifts accepted), including free entrance to the Newt Gardens.

We appreciate the work that gathering this information will involve on your part, and have taken the liberty of copying Mr Paul Rawson, of the Newt, who will no doubt be able to help you in providing detailed answers to the questions above.

I understand that you are obliged to provide me with answers in full within twenty working days of receipt of this letter, sent by email today, and I look forward to receiving them.

Yours sincerely,

Charles de Salis

Count Charles de Salis, Yarlington House, Yarlington, Wincanton, Somerset, BA9 8DY

North Cadbury and Yarlington Neighbourhood Development Plan

North Cadbury and Yarlington Neighbourhood Development Plan. A meeting of the village will be called to discuss appropriate responses.

Download the North Cadbury and Yarlington Neighbourhood Development Plan.

In the short term, here are comments received from Martin Leay, Planning Consultant, retained by the village: 

Dear Charlie,

North Cadbury and Yarlington Neighbourhood Development Plan

The Neighbourhood Plan, according to the online programme is not due for draft plan consultation until early 2021 and an External Examination by an Examiner in the late summer of 2021. The indication of potential development sites, as of August 2020 is simply a map where landowners have made a submission to either SSDC or NC&Y as to the potential development opportunity of an identified site. For Yarlington Lodge, reference NCY02, this covers a very large area beyond just the built form of the house and outbuildings.

At this stage and subject to a good deal of further consultation and review, followed by a referendum for adopting the Neighbourhood Plan, the owners identification of Yarlington Lodge Estate, as a potential development site, carries very little weight and no justification or certain expectation that the site will be found suitable for development – which at this stage appears unspecified in terms of scale or type.

When the options consultation takes place and followed by the draft plan consultation (target dates September 2020 and early 2021) it will be important for Yarlington residents to make their views known.

Conclusion

At this stage, in relation to an imminent planning application being submitted for Yarlington Lodge the early stages of the neighbourhood plan process are of little, if any, relevance.


All best,

Martin J Leay

An examination of the presentation document circulated to Planners and Area East Councillors for their meeting in early June

An examination of the presentation document circulated to Planners and Area East Councillors for their meeting in early June, shows much more fully developed proposals for the Yarlington Lodge site.

Notably, the drive and drive entrance opposite Rookery, which was the subject of the the meeting between Koos Bekker and Caroline Chichester-Clark described above, were shown then as already closed-up. All visitor access to the site is given as coming through a new entrance higher up the lane.

Freedom of Information Request filed, submitted by Adam Chichester-Clark

Freedom of Information Request filed, submitted by Adam Chichester-Clark.

Download Adam's Freedom of Information Request.

Koos Bekker visits Caroline Chichester-Clark to discuss Yarlington Lodge

KB visits Caroline Chichester-Clark to discuss Yarlington Lodge. Account of the meeting (as provided by Caroline).

He asked me what concerned me most about the issue of Yarlington Lodge. 

I said:

• Unacceptable amount of increased traffic, noise, pollution etc. He said they could perhaps close the drive opposite me and have an in/out drive at the top of the hill just below the de Salises’ drive (more on this anon). He ignored points about noise travelling and my comment that we hear A371 and A303 when wind is from those directions, despite latter being a couple of miles away. I said closing the drive opposite us would certainly be an excellent idea because it is very dangerous (see our damaged wall and wrecked side door). He asked how fast our broadband is? I said good enough for our needs, people working and home-schooling etc.
• Unsuitable and dangerous lanes for numbers envisaged. He ignored the point.
• Noise from large gatherings as well as traffic. He ignored the point but Paul has since told me there will be no fireworks, no outside music.
• Destruction of yet another particularly delicate, beautiful part of rural England of which so little is left. He didn’t address this. I said the magic and charm of Shatwell has been destroyed. He said it is looking better now.
• Lodge will be used by rich clientele who will contribute nothing to village life. He didn’t comment. I pointed out he has good access roads at the Newt, a new slip road, a car park, plenty of space and could build a venue up there which wouldn’t bother anyone. He said he had been approached by the richest indian family in the UK who wanted to book the Newt for a family gathering and they couldn’t be accommodated at the hotel (I understand this.) As you know, apart from 60 beds, he wants a car park for up to 150 cars and venue space on footprint of riding school for up to 200 people. He didn’t seem to understand this would swamp a village of approx. 90 people (I think he confuses ‘towns’ and ‘villages’ as you have pointed out). 
• I also said Yarlington Lodge had never been part of the Hadspen Estate. I asked Koos why he bought it and he said "because it is beautiful!" I imagine he could, so he did.
• I also asked how we could be sure this proposed development wouldn’t turn into something bigger a few months/years down the line. He said that would be up to the planners (ie: no concern of his). He may not realise he is in danger of destroying the very thing he values: priceless peace, beauty, untrammelled rural landscape?

CONCLUSION: I cannot gauge whether it matters to Koos that the entire village and wider parish are, as far as I am aware, against this proposed development. It seems his attitude is: “all will be well in the end, people will come round to it”. But the tarmac will have been laid, huge numbers catered for and the village and landscape, in my view, blighted. Once changed from residential to commercial use there little chance of going back.

A widely-attended meeting was held by Lucinda Lambourne

A widely-attended meeting was held by LL, to which all in the village were invited, to discuss latest developments and future actions. 

The principal conclusion of the meeting is that any proposal by the Newt which involved a change from residential use for Yarlington Lodge should be vigorously opposed.

Response to Charlie Ellingworth from William Wallace

Response to CE from William Wallace.

From: William Wallace - Councillor

Date: 1 August 2020 at 20:13:44 CEST

To: Charlie Ellingworth

Subject: RE:  Yarlington Lodge and The Newt

Thanks for your email Charlie ,  We have received a presentation from the Newt along with their plans . Although not in my ward of the Blackmoor Vale it is within Area East SSDC for consideration . I hear your comments and concerns and will bring this up if it comes to Committee .

I’m not sure what stage this application is at the moment but no doubt we will hear soon in these confusing times . Have you spoken to Henry Hobhouse about this ? All Best – William.

 

Koos Bekker and Paul Rawson visit Lucinda Lambourne to discuss Yarlington Lodge

KB and PR visit LL to discuss Yarlington Lodge. Account of the meeting (as provided by LL).

I had arranged a meeting with Paul Rawson on 27-July for him to come over to discuss the access that I have over the Yarlington Lodge drive. On the morning of the meeting both Koos and Paul turned up.

Topics discussed:

• Ensuring that not all Yarlington Lodge houses were lost to the community. Informed me that they had sold Pin Lane Cottage (at a loss!) to one of the employees of the Newt. It did not go on the open market and was not offered to Lucas and Lucie Hollweg who had discussed with Sue Seager, if they were to ever sell it, to let them know. Koos said he knew nothing of this discussion or indeed who Lucas and Lucie are!!
• Buggy track from Shatwell. Given the number of people that raised this as a concern, they have removed this from their proposal.
• Footpath beside the ride/avenue. Again, given the number of people that raised this as a concern, they do not intend to move the existing footpath or make it into a “proper tree lined path”. We then discussed the exact positioning of the footpath as I pointed out that whilst the footpath was actually in the field, everybody actually walked up the ride. So asked them to be realistic about the impact that this would have on the use if they continued with the plan to put the new driveway up the ride and have the footpath in the field. Koos asked where else they could put the drive and I suggested through the wood – this also might mean they could bring the road out on a safer part of the hill (if they had to build it at all). Koos said he would look into that.
• Noise from wedding/events. They do not intend to have any fireworks at the weddings/events and assured me that as the barn was on the top of the hill no noise would be heard in the village. I pointed out that the topography of the village is such that noises from the existing barn can be heard down the valley and that he should understand the impact of noise travelling around the village. I pointed out that you could hear cows and tractors in the farm yard very clearly – he asked why that was an acceptable noise?! I also pointed out that several people have informed me when the boys are playing in our garden they can hear every word given the ability for noise to travel. Koos did say that they would have a maximum capacity of 150 people (and got quite cross when I mentioned 400 people) but then discussed why they then needed parking for 150 cars to which there was no really satisfactory answer. The noise discussion was quite protracted including discussing the fact that events were being run at Yarlington House and nobody seemed to object. He likened what he was planning at Yarlington Lodge with what already happens at Yarlington House. I pointed out that he had to be joking given the frequency; size, scale and location are completely and utterly different!!
• Access to The Old Parsonage over Yarlington Lodge Drive. They are not proposing to use the shared drive past The Old Parsonage so said he would be willing to sell it to me but suggested that they build a big wall on the other side of the drive to keep out the noise (I thought there wasn’t going to be any!) I said I would prefer not to have to endure the building work of a big wall so said they would put together a proposal. They are not intending to have any access from Crockers Hill.
• Community. Spent a long time talking about the community and how a development of this size would change it forever and probably destroy it. The few pertinent points from this were:
1. Koos comes from humble beginnings in South Africa and understands rural communities.
2. He kept calling Yarlington a town and likened it several times to things that were happening in Castle Cary and North Cadbury.
3. He thought Yarlington Lodge would provide good job prospects for the people of Yarlington - I asked him how many people in Yarlington he thought were likely to want a job at Yarlington Lodge? He appeared to have no idea of the demographic of the village.  
4. He said that he would stop people from leaving Yarlington Lodge if that is what the village wanted – I pointed out that he can’t dictate where people will and will not walk/drive/go (and that is also not what I said!) 
5. Likened what he was developing at the Newt to what had happened at Chatsworth in Derbyshire – turning a stately home that has been in the same family since 1549 into a commercial venture with 105 acre garden, 1,800 acre park as well as c. 5000 acres of farm land!!!

CONCLUSION: I asked that if Koos took one thing away from the meeting it was that he should to get to know the people and community of Yarlington as community is not about giving money to events/clubs but about being involved with the people who live around you and have a collective understanding and appreciation of the village in which we live.

Response to Charlie Ellingworth from Michael Lewis

Response to CE from Michael Lewis.

From: Michael Lewis

Date: 30 July 2020 at 13:26:18 CEST

To: Charlie Ellingworth

Subject: Re:  Yarlington Lodge and The Newt

Dear Charlie,

Thank you for your email and the views expressed re. Yarlington Lodge.  Your South Somerset District Councillors for Yarlington are Councillors Henry Hobhouse and Kevin Messenger who should be the first port of call with regard to planning matters, My role as your County Councillor is slightly different, but I am able to take on board your comments if or when the application is brought to the Area East committee by the chairman, Cllr. H. Hobhouse or his chosen vice-chairman Tony Capozzoli. Besides being a County Councillor I represent a different ward ( Camelot ) as a District Councillor and so I am able to comment on applications, but members do tend to take more notice of the local ward members and as I say Cllrs. Hobhouse and Messenger in this instance.

I am very conscious of the concerns of the local residents of Yarlington regarding this application.

You may be aware that South Somerset does not have a five year land supply and the presumption by the planners is to approve applications otherwise applicants go to appeal and win approval on the basis of this lack of the land supply. Plus if the applicant feels that the councillors are being unreasonable then the Planning Inspector can award costs against the District Council.

I do know that when the Yarlington Lodge application came before Area East committee members tried to place a number of conditions on the application to try and take in to account the concerns of the local residents.

I hope this email is of assistance to you. If you need any clarification please do contact me.

With kind regards,

Mike Lewis

Response to Charlie Ellingworth from Robin Bastable

Response to CE from Robin Bastable.

From: Robin Bastable

Date: 29 July 2020 at 19:27:34 CEST

To: Charlie Ellingworth

Subject: Re:  Yarlington Lodge

  Dear Mr Ellingworth

 Thank you for your email and the views you express, yes I myself asked at the pre meeting what was local opinion to this and yes we were given to understand that generally they were in favour.

 I will follow up on your directions to try and ascertain local feelings on this proposal.

 I do take issue with your opinion that all the Newts plans get nodded through, the Area East Committee in my opinion is reasonable and try and do the right thing for all residents and you also have to take into account that these projects do give employment to local people, not only contractors but employees at the venues and Rural Somerset as a whole is a relatively low income area.

 Your other point about low-cost housing in the area is a valid one but that is not solely down to the Newt, the developments in Bruton started this rise in house prices in the area and recent press reports that Bruton is the new Notting Hill does not help, we could discuss this for hours but councils do no longer build affordable housing in the rural areas I’m afraid.

 If feeling is so strong in Yarlington may I suggest that you encourage as many people as possible to attend the meeting where this application is discussed with the caveat that please do not have everyone repeating the same points non stop you will loose impact, spread the points or even just say I support previous speakers, this will show local feeling and come across much better.

 If you wish to discuss any other points please do not hesitate to contact me again.

 Regards 

 Robin Bastable  

Sent from my iPad

Email from Charlie Ellingworth to all Councillor Members of the Planning Committee

 Email from CE to all Councillor Members of the Planning Committee.

Dear ________,

I am writing to you as the representative of the residents of Yarlington who are concerned about The Newt’s plans to turn Yarlington Lodge into a wedding and events venue. We had heard indirectly from a member of the Planning Committee that there was a general impression amongst the members that the Newt’s proposals had local support. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is almost unanimous opposition to the original proposal and a general unease at the way in which any proposals by The Newt seem to get nodded through the planning system without, seemingly, any of the scrutiny that would normally be the case - with implications for local low-cost housing. When The Newt was contained within the old Hadspen Estate, this did not impinge on local life. But with its apparently boundless plans for local expansion, this is no longer the case and we felt it was important that you were aware of this local feeling.

Please find here a link to the Yarlington Lodge website which includes a timeline of Yarlington’s interaction with The Newt this year, copies of the letters in reply to The Newt’s presentation to residents in February and the results of a survey undertaken of all the households and residents in the village and immediate surrounds.

http://yarlingtonlodge.com/

The Newt is coming back, at some point, with a revised proposal which we hope will address local concerns - and we have open minds - but we felt that it was important that you are aware of the reality of local sentiment.

Please do call me if I can add anything to this.

Kind regards

Charlie Ellingworth

Progress update to the Village by Charlie Ellingworth

Conference call between ML CE NH.

• Timeline so far to be prepared for website with domain name Yarlington Lodge.

• Contact with councillors delayed until we know extent of new proposals.

• NH to write directly to Koos Bekker to make sure he knows both the continuing strength of local concern, and unease about the lack of transparency in the process.

Reply from Paul Rawson to Charlie Ellingworth confirming that they had no date yet for second consultation

Reply from PR to CE confirming that they had no date yet for second consultation.

Information received that members of planning committee under the impression that Yarlington Lodge proposals have local support

Reply from Paul Rawson to Charlie Ellingworth saying no decision yet

Update by Charlie Ellingworth to the village

Update by CE to the village.

Letter from ML to Henry Hobhouse (HH) and Simon Fox of the Planning Department.

• Introducing himself to both and informing them of the level of local objection.
• Voicing concerns that the planning officers were rumoured it be in favour.
• Asking if there was a record of the pre-app meeting.
• Asking if there had been consideration of the highways situation.

Charlie Ellingworth telephone conversation with Henry Hobhouse

CE telephone conversation with Henry Hobhouse (HH).

No interest in local objections, only planning issues.

Visit by Martin Leay to inspect the site

Visit by ML to inspect the site.

Reports that, despite assurances from PR that work on the Proposal had halted, there had been a pre-planning application meeting with the planning officers.

North Cadbury and Yarlington Neighbourhood Plan Group Monthly Meeting

North Cadbury and Yarlington Neighbourhood Plan Group Monthly Meeting.
(Held by Zoom)

Present: Mike Martin (MM, Chair), Richard Rundle (RR, Deputy Chair) Andy Keys-Toyer (AKT), Tim Gilbert (TG), Jo Witherden (JW) (Consultant) & Alan Brain (AB).

Download meeting minutes.

Download meeting agenda.

North Cadbury and Yarlington Neighbourhood Plan Group Monthly Meeting

North Cadbury and Yarlington Neighbourhood Plan Group Monthly Meeting.
(Held by Zoom)

Present: Mike Martin (MM, chair), Richard Rundle (RR, Deputy Chair) Allan Brain (AB), Andy Keys-Toyer (AKT), Tim Gilbert (TG), Jo Witherden (JW) (Consultant).

Download meeting minutes.

Download meeting agenda.