SSDC try to push Yeovil Hostel through
The controversial plans for Acacia Lodge took another turn today. South Somerset District Council (SSDC) support plans to convert the former care home into a homeless hostel. The plan goes against their own Rough Sleeper Policy for working with the homeless, which is not to use hostels. Their action plan clearly states the need for smaller units, to place homeless people where they can be safely accommodated.
The applicant is BCHA which runs the Pathways Hostel in Yeovil.
Local opposition to the plan has been overwhelming and vocal. Local residents formed the Hands of Hendford Hill (HOHH) action group to fight the application. Responses to the application included 658 objections with just 10 in favour.
In January this year a Yeovil Town Council meeting to discuss the application had to be moved to the Westland Centre. Over 150 people turned up to voice their objections. The Town Council voted to object to the plans by 8 votes to nil with three abstentions. Of course Yeovil Town Council is only a consultee, not the decision making body. The target date for a decision was initially set as November 2021. However that date has long since slipped by.
Since January then there has been no further formal discussion of the issue at SSDC. It has not appeared on Area South Planning Meeting agendas. And Area South does not usually meet in August.
Suddenly over the weekend there has been a rush of activity. An officer’s report appeared, a date was set to consider it and that date was 10 August.
Local residents and the Hands of Hendford Hill (HOHH) action group were shocked. The 10 August is of course right at the height of the holiday season. In any case, neither councillors not members of the public will have sufficient time to consider this controversial application properly in the time available.
According to HOHH “notification of this meeting went out over the last weekend (31st July), internally to SSDC, however many of our community are yet to be informed with no letters so far being sent to the 700 plus objectors to this proposal.“
Cllr Peter Gubbins is the ward member for Yeovil South and Chair of the Area South Planning Committee. The Leveller® has seen correspondence that suggests he attempted to set the meeting for 7 September. It seems those at the highest levels of SSDC are determined to bulldoze this through in the face of vocal opposition. Cllr Gubbins stated “My decision has been overruled by the Leader of the Council, Cllr Val Keitch who has decided that the 10th August would be the date of the hearing. Last week I requested three times that the date is changed to September giving the same reasons as your request to me but as to date I have had no reply. I have been approached by the ward members who also asked for September and to which I fully support but unfortunately the response is negative.”
SSDC has agreed to pay £390k towards the scheme envisaged in the application. Meaning that all councillors will, inevitably, have an effective conflict of interest. At the very least the fact SSDC have given funds, leaves a strong whiff of pre determination.
The officer’s report concludes: “The application seeks planning permission to change the use of the property from a care home to accommodation for people experiencing homelessness (sui generis). The proposals would cause no demonstrable harm to (i) character of the surrounding area, (ii) visual amenity, (iii) the setting, character and appearance of the Conservation Area (iv) the setting of any listed building (v) residential amenity vi crime and disorder, vii) highway safety.“
Perhaps the way in which this is being rushed through suggests a lack of confidence in the validity of that conclusion.
While I have no knowledge of this case, there is always a large element of Nimby-ism in this type of application, often disguised, sometimes not very well, as concern for the future residents.
Surely there is a requirement to try to help the least fortunate and most needy in our communities and that help has to be provided somewhere.
It would be interesting to understand which of the 7 points of the conclusion might not be valid, and on the basis of what evidence.
Keith can I suggest you perform a small amount of research on the goings on of the current site (Pathways, Newton Rd, Yeovil) and you’ll gain a better understanding. This plan to move that site and those residents from one site to another and with the same company managing the new site (BCHA) is utterly insane, but I guess that’s what we expect from SSDC. Via the freedom of info act I’ve seen that Pathways themselves called the Police over 770 times requesting urgent assistance – that figure doesn’t include calls by residents in the area to the Police – and this was over a 3.5yr period. And the current site, a Warzone though it may be now, is a town centre location and not residential like the proposed site.
Nothing changes then. The rational objections of residents are constantly overruled and the local plan and its policies are meaningless. Villages without amenities find themselves with unwanted housing, Grade 1 agricultural land is given over to warehousing, conditions allegedly to make development acceptable are never enforced, land is developed without permission and then the planners and councillors give retrospective permission and sustainable development is a term SSDC does not appear to understand. Questions need to be asked about who is benefitting and Avon and Somerset Constabulary should be asked to investigate.
if the carrying ons at the Newton rd property and local environs are anything to go by its going to be a disaster waiting to happen when you have dealers and customers stagering around on a main rd junction a pub next door people with alchohol problems a country park giving plenty of cover for their nefarious activities oppisit , I dont think they could pick a less appropriate location . The manner in which the council are dealing with this is par for the course this is SSDC frawd investigations changing of meeting dates to minimise the ability for full and proper debate or just ignoring correspondence , I wonder what the people pro this rediculous idea stand to gain
if the carrying ons at the Newton rd property and local environs are anything to go by its going to be a disaster waiting to happen when you have dealers and customers stagering around on a main rd junction a pub next door people with alchohol problems a country park giving plenty of cover for their nefarious activities oppisit , I dont think they could pick a less appropriate location . The manner in which the council are dealing with this is par for the course this is SSDC frawd investigations changing of meeting dates to minimise the ability for full and proper debate or just ignoring correspondence , I wonder what the people pro this rediculous idea stand to gain