Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft


  • North west Nailsea - flooding

    Will there be a flooding evidence paper?
    I notice that Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 defined in table 1 of the NPPF national technical guidance are to be assessed "ignoring the presence of defences". 
    The 5 meter contour comes up to the Parish Brook adjacent to the NA2 site.  This contour is defined from mean sea level.  As the tidal range at Clevedon is nearly 14 meters the tide would rise to the 7 meter contour if defences are ignored. It seems to indicate that, ignoring wind and pressure surges, significant parts of the site would be inundated at least monthly during spring tides.  The prevailing south westerly wind and occasional pressure surges would increase the frequiency of innundation.  This suggests that parts of the NA2 site should be classified as zone 3b, the most at-risk classification.
    Sea level rise due to climate change would also increase the frequency of inunndation but, within the period of the plan this is likely to be relatively minor.
    Doesn't this suggests that the flood risk areas shown on the online interactive map need to be reviewed against the national technical guidance?

    Started by Deleted User 7 years ago. Last reply 7 years ago

    Read this discussion and 6 replies

  • Local Green Space

    I believe that NSC   should include as a Local Green Space that field forming the part of Planning application 13/P/0038/f by Sidcot school  as it meets  definitions 3.1 to 3.6 inclusive  in the definitions of NSC Evidence Paper dated February 2013 .
    In terms;-
    Definitions :-
    3.1 it is historical grassing land with ancient hedging and historical avenue of Trees.

    3.2  whilst it is Private land it is owned by a registered charity, Sidcot School and exceptionally the avenue of trees commemorates the role of Sidcot hamlet coming to the aid of Belgium refugees form the fist world war and  falls within this definition and was it is said planted by refugees. Also there are public footpaths  through the site and along the avenue of trees

    3.3 it falls within this definition

    3.4 it is not used for agriculture and it is used as grazing for horses from the Sidcot School equestrian  facility . The field holds especial status in the eyes of the hamlet and for visitors generally as the footpath through the Avenue if trees provides an essential entrance walk to the AONB beyond

    3.5 it is bounded by and forms a central part of the Sidcot Hamlet and whilst is not within the village envelope it is bounded on three sides by the village fence 

    3.6 because of the historical associations referred to in 3.1 & 3.2 and the provision of a pedestrian gateway to the AONB of the Mendip Hills  and to the hamlet of Sidcot . It is treated as special by almost the entire the inhabitants of Sidcot/Oakridge hamlet as witnessed and evidenced by their written opposition to the planning application by Sidcot School with reference number 13/P/0038/f filed on NSC web site 

    Kind regards

    Nicholas Redding
    Rainbow House 
    Oakridge Lane 
    BS25 1LZ

    Started by Deleted User 7 years ago.

    Read this discussion and 0 replies

  • North West Nailsea

    What do you think?

    Started by NW 7 years ago. Last reply 7 years ago

    Read this discussion and 1 reply


    Before you just dismiss this and answer yes in a kneejerk fashion, perhaps you would allow me a few minutes of your time to outline some reasons for NOT re-opening the Portishead rail line.

    I understand the main reasons for re-opening the line are three-fold:

    1.       To reduce traffic on arterial roads and reduce journey times for commuters

    2.       Improve transport network resilience, which is independent from the highway network

    3.       Deliver a sustainable transport corridor and improve air quality

    My response to the above would be as follows:

    1.       Introducing a rail line from Portishead would not necessarily ease congestion or reduce journey times for commuters.

    • A station car park would encourage queuing into and out of it at peak times thereby shifting the congestion to that area
    • Charges at the station car park would encourage commuters to park in residential areas; thereby increasing traffic and parking issues in those areas
    • Many commuters do not intend to use the rail link as they do not work near Templemeads. To use the train and then have to get a connecting bus or taxi to their place of work would add to their journey time and cost not detract from it
    • The congestion that was PREVIOUSLY a problem on the A369 has been eased following the new road layout at junction 19 of the M5. Average journey time to Bristol is between 25-30 minutes during peak hours (I do this journey every day)

    2.       Improving transport network resilience is only worthwhile if people will actually use the service. It seems pointless to put the line in place to potentially connect 30,000 people to the wider transport network without any real planning or research as to who will actually use it. The line has become a ‘nice to have’ rather than a genuine requirement.

    3.       Delivering a sustainable transport corridor and improving air quality

    • A rail link will not necessarily mean that people will stop commuting by car so air quality will not be improved
    • A sustainable transport corridor comes at a cost. The rail line has been confirmed as a loss leader which means that ticket sales will not cover the cost of running it. So, where does the money have to come from in the future? The answer is from increases in YOUR council tax, YOUR business rates and/or YOUR car parking charges to name but three options
    • Station car parking charges will cause congestion in other areas of the town as commuters seek to actively avoid paying them. As a result, yellow lines and car parking charges in otherwise free car parks in the town will come into play to ease the inevitable traffic problems that will ensue. If this happens:           

                                                                   i.      The number of visitors to the town will be impacted and therefore, the owners of high street shops

                                                                 ii.      People will travel to the shopping centre at the Mall where they can park free and do their shopping. This means that MORE people will be taking to their cars not less

    • Areas of greenbelt - home to many species of the local wildlife - will be demolished and hundreds of trees will be cut down to make way for the rail line. I fail to see how that will improve air quality or indeed, the community of Portishead as a whole

     In addition to the above points, have you considered the following?

    • The potential impact of an increase in crime in your community
    • A compromise in the privacy and security for residents with footbridges/paths due to be erected in the vicinity
    • Noise & light pollution from the station
    • Residential outlooks will be compromised
    • An increase in graffiti, litter and urination at the rail station site and associated footpaths/footbridges
    • The potential for residential areas near the station site to become permit only parking (at the expense of residents) to ease the traffic problems from commuters wishing to take advantage of free parking
    • The safety of schoolchildren at peak times with an increase of traffic in the area

    Started by Deleted User 7 years ago. Last reply 7 years ago

    Read this discussion and 7 replies