Further effort by house builders to develop landlocked Yate site turned down by planners

August 30 2016

A THIRD attempt by developers to build homes on a site in Yate has failed after planners rejected their latest application.

A THIRD attempt by developers to build homes on a site in Yate has failed after planners rejected their latest application.

Woodstock Homes first applied last year for consent to demolish a bungalow in Cambrian Drive in order to gain access to a landlocked piece of ground, where the company wanted to put 18 homes.

But South Gloucestershire Council turned down the proposal, leading to Woodstock appealing against the ruling.

An inspector appointed to hear the evidence dismissed the appeal but earlier this year, Woodstock re-submitted the scheme, saying it had addressed the inspector’s concerns.

However, South Gloucestershire Council has again thrown it out, repeating its view that it would result in “significant and demonstrable harm” and failed to reach the highest possible standards of site planning and design.

Yate Town Council also claimed the application was “a mockery of the planning system” as the proposal had previously been rejected at the appeal.

It opposed the development “strongly” and said: “This is a well-used piece of open space which has been used integrally with the adjoining open land for 35 years. It is essential to keep it open.”

One of the key issues behind the refusal was access to the site.

A South Gloucestershire Council report said the proposed route in and out would affect an existing car-free public right of way to the rear of the site.

It said that impact would also be felt over a wide area as the right of way had significant links to other housing developments nearby and routes to community facilities and services.

A planning statement prepared by the Pegasus Group, on behalf of Woodstock, had claimed there would be a “convenient, attractive access” for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities.

It also said there would be “very limited inconvenience” to the users of an existing cycleway/footway that crossed the access route as a “living street” concept would give reduced priority to vehicles.

Some 36 residents added their opposition to the proposal