THE WEEK IN East Bristol & North East Somerset
22nd March 2023
Issue 773
FREE
Read by more than 40,000 people each week
Campaigners’ shock over council’s stance on Hanham Green Belt Fears for the future of Green Belt land in Hanham continue to rise after a council planning officer’s report described proposals to build on it as an “urban development project” and that an environmental impact assessment would not be necessary. Ashfield Land and Redrow Homes last month announced their intention to apply for planning permission to build 149 homes on fields known as The Batch, off Hencliffe Way. Although no planning application has yet been submitted to South Gloucestershire Council, the developers’ consultants were told last week that, in the local authority’s opinion, an environmental impact assessment (EIA) would not be required. The purpose of an EIA is to ensure that the environmental effects of a proposed development are properly considered. As well as considering the proposal to be an “urban development project”, the planning officer’s report said: “The development is not considered likely to have significant longterm irreversible impacts on humans or on the environment either in isolation or in combination with other planned development in the vicinity of the site.” The report said that the developers’ description of the site was “broadly appropriate and accurate” although the constraints plan “does not note the status of the site as designated Green Belt, some designated heritage assets are not entirely accurately plotted and the supporting statement
asserts that the designated Site of Nature Conservation Importance no longer has ecological value over the majority of its area given agricultural practice over an extended period”. This week Hanham District Green Belt Conservation Society committee member Alex Pirie said: “The fact that South Gloucestershire Council considers an environmental impact assessment is not required in respect of potential development in an area designated Green Belt is truly astonishing. “Any erosion of the Green Belt will impact the environment and should be properly assessed. The BBC Wild Isles programme stated that over the past 60 years, the UK has lost 97% of it wild meadow land, having an adverse impact on wildlife, insects and pollinators. When an EIA is not considered necessary, even for the potential loss of designated Green Belt, it’s easy to see why our country is in such a sorry state.” Alex Pirie added that statements in the council’s response should merit an EIA, rather than taking the developers’ views “at face value”, explaining: “For people living in close proximity to the site, this proposal will have a tremendous impact on their environment which deserves to be properly assessed. Regarding the Site of Nature Conservation Importance having no ecological value due to agricultural practice, it is worth noting that the ground has remained
The Batch
fallow for a longer period than it has actually been farmed. “Typically, the land has been ploughed and planted April/May and harvested September i.e. utilised for five months and fallow for seven months. Nature quickly returns to the site each year before the cycle is repeated. An EIA would formally determine its value and contribution to the ecology of the area. “The council does however recognise the site has a range of constraints and interests of acknowledged importance and further assessments and mitigations will be necessary. They recommend a pre-application enquiry is submitted to fully establish requirements and the council’s likely position in respect of the development proposal.” More than 1,100 people have already signed a petition on the change.org website saying the proposals are “an attack on an area known for its beauty, wildlife and ecosystems” and “a Continued on page 3
Also in this week’s issue
‘No significant changes planned in Keynsham High Street’ . . . page 2
50 ‘affordable’ homes now proposed for Chief Trading Post site in Oldland . . . page 3
Protecting Saltford’s village green . . . page 4
New Lyde Green schools delayed yet again . . . page 6