The Four stone Retreat

Adrian 2025-03-16 20:30:33

We object to the "Four Stones Retreat" development at Moors Cottage in Clent. Our property is marked on the plan as "Danesdyke". Firstly, we have significant concerns about the potential for noise pollution from temporary visitors. Whilst there is a line of trees that will provide some visual screening between our property and the proposed Shepherds Huts, we know that noise reflects off the other side of the valley (Walton Hill) and bounces directly towards our house. The line of trees has no apparent impact on this as the curve of the hillside focuses the sound. The reflected noise is sufficiently loud and clear that we can often make out the individual words of conversations taking place in our neighbours' gardens. Parties at Moors Cottage already disturb the peace and tranquillity of a quiet valley but are currently infrequent- adding an ongoing sequence of temporary visitors who have come "for a good time" and have no need to maintain long-term relationships with neighbours will only increase this. As an example of the unusual acoustic properties of the valley, when a waterwheel was installed at Moors Cottage a few years ago, the noise from this made it impossible to sleep in our bedroom – it was louder in our position (partway up the hillside) than at road level (about 10 metres lower). It was a great relief when the waterwheel was taken out of action - we fear that this will simply now be replaced by noise from the Shepherds Huts. Secondly, we do not believe that the infrastructure for services (especially water and electricity) is adequate to support additional dwellings within the valley. The transformer supplying electricity to the valley is on our property and we know from conversations with the technicians who come to service/inspect it, that the transformer is already working right up to its capacity. We experience frequent brown-outs (where the transformer is unable to cope, meaning that lights dim and computers can shut down). Adding additional load to the transformer will increase this further. In a similar way, the water pressure available is already very poor. Any additional water consumption within the valley will reduce the water pressure further, potentially causing to fall below the minimum needed for boilers and other appliances to operate. Finally, the instructions for applicants say that consultation with neighbours must occur before an application is submitted. I have been unable to find a single neighbour who has been consulted. This includes immediate neighbours where traffic from the site will pass through their garden.

Daniel 2025-03-13 16:33:59

I strongly object to this application as a resident of St Kenelms Pass. Our property The brinks is directly opposite the proposed area to site the Shepard huts and they would be clearly visible from our property. Furthermore the sound carries extremely easily over the valley (even people talking) and this would certainly be an issue. I have not been consulted on this application in line with your website guidelines. I look forward to further communication and anticipate the withdrawal of this application.

Chris 2025-03-11 21:33:55

We object to the proposed development on the following grounds, 1) There is insufficient hydraulic capacity in the public foul water sewer to cope with the increased demands of huts with bathrooms installed. 2) Clatterbach Lane is a narrow single track road that extends for a distance of 202metres from the junction with Vine Lane. Along this road there are no passing places. This leads to traffic having to often reverse over 100 metres round a bend in complete darkness when encountering contra flowing vehicles. In fact the applicants husband forced my partner to reverse when driving aggressively towards her on a dark night that resulted in her car hitting a neighbours driveway bollard resulting in damage to the rear bumper. Increased traffic would doubtless lead to further damage to vehicles and property. 3) The water supply to all houses would be affected. Pressure and flow rates are already at the statutory minimum and further draw off for the huts would only lead to further deprivation of sufficient water supply to the existing homes on the lane. 4) Broadband would also be severely affected. Fibre has arrived in Clent but only as far as the village centre where it comes into a central cabinet (FTTC Fibre to the Cabinet). From here all houses on Clatterbach are fed by overhead twin copper lines. At best speeds are 44MBPS. The application notes that WIFI is already in place. Further draw on this pitiful bandwidth would affect all property owners in the vicinity. 5)Your application form asks for details of the closest properties bounding the applicants site. Has this been deliberately ignored by the applicant? Is this acceptable behaviour for your members? 6) Your application also asks the applicant to tick a box confirming they have consulted with any neighbours who share boundaries. The applicants have made absolutely no attempt to consult with any neighbours whatsoever. This is in direct conflict with Clause 79 of your Terms & Conditions. 7) We fully concur with the comments made by our neighbours, James & Sharon 8) We disagree with the sketch submitted outlining the application site location and extent. The title boundary of Moors Cottage is shown as holding ownership of the access road. The Land Registry title plan clearly shows the access road running between land parcels 4668 & 5262 are not held by the applicant. The marked are for the siting of the “huts” (plural) lacks definition and strays into National Trust land. 9) Clause 77 of your Terms & Conditions states that domestic waste bins must not be used and that commercial waste apparatus be utilised. This would not be possible as a commercial waste carrier would be unable to access the property. Our domestic waste has to be collected by a specialised mini waste collection lorry. The access road would not be accessible in a large commercial vehicle.. 10) Clause 52 of your Terms & Conditions (Contract) places responsibility to ensure that traffic routes are managed such that they do not interfere with or cause delays to other road users. This would be unachievable on Clatterbach lane as the increased traffic flow would always cause issues thereby placing the applicant in regular breach of the contract with you. We as neighbours would then be able to seek redress via the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 against both the applicant and the Woodlands Champions Club. For the reasons noted, here and in the other objections you have already received, we believe the application should be rejected.

James 2025-03-11 14:19:32

I object to the application as a resident on Clatterbach Lane for the following reasons - Insufficient foul drainage capacity Potential to public fouling and contamination of land which feeds a currently clean water course. Increased rain water run off into an area already prone to flooding. Placing increased loading on already poor quality electricity and communications networks which regularly give power cuts Reducing pressure in already low pressure and low flow water mains 75% increase in traffic movements on an already narrow road (Clatterbach Lane) with no passing places and no pavements. Significantly increased chance of pedestrians, horses and cyclists being injured by vehicles unaware of the paths and bridle ways that feed directly onto Clatterbach lane which is a shared space (no pavements or separate lanes). Risk to home schooled children who live on Clatterbach lane. Increased noise levels for neighbouring properties generated by guests located in a natural amphitheatre. The sound from this area echoes from Clent hill to Walton hill and back and forth, this would disturb peaceful enjoyment to all visitors to the hills. Disturbance to local wildlife in an otherwise undisturbed area of woodland without public footpaths where the campsite is proposed. Deer, badgers, fox, rabbits and many rare birds use this area and the "hills" are an important stop off for many migrating and visiting birds. Disturbance from people returning to campsite late at night – the access is directly under bedroom windows of multiple properties. Part of the access route is not believed to public highway so no legal right of way for commercial purposes. Furthermore local residents have implied easement on this none public section and this would breach the legal right to enjoy undisturbed use granted by the easement as per case law surrounding use of easements. The continuation of Clatterbach Lane where it becomes a none public track (and technically no longer Clatterbach Lane) is not open to the public where the proposed campsite is located. Insufficient escape route in emergency which would increase further the risk to near by residents. Visual detrimental impact to the countryside as the proposed area can be seen from the public footpath that passes around the land on the south side, I can provide photographic evidence. Lack of consultation regarding the proposal. No one in the immediate area has supported the proposal except for the proposer.

Sharon 2025-03-10 17:41:01

Mr and Mrs J Butler strongly object to this application. We have the following points; 1. The map attached to this application gives the impression the public highway of Clatterbach lane continues up to Moors Cottage. This is incorrect. The public highway finishes at the boundary of Walton hill Cottage. There is a shared access track that services Walton hill cottage and Moors cottage only. This track is maintained at our joint expense. To access Moors Cottage all traffic passes through Walton Hill Cottage. 2. The shared access track. This is a single narrow track. It is not designed for excessive traffic. It passes through the land and garden of Walton Hill Cottage. There is a safety issue for dogs and children utilising Walton Hill Cottage. Mr R Bridgewater has intermittent use of this track for access to his property. He would go beyond his easement rights for his business to operate. 3. Domestic Dwelling. We have lived here for 16 years. We purchased the property for its beauty and tranquility. A commercial enterprise would ruin this. When we purchased Walton Hill Cottage the previous owner informed us that the shared access track was only for the use of our Cottage and Moors Cottage as private dwellings. 4. Clatterbach Lane This is a narrow single track lane. There are no passing places. It is used by horse riders, cyclists, walkers and the owners of three other properties. It is within a National trust area with crossing footpaths.Again it is not designed for additional traffic. 5. Disturbance of the Peace Outdoor living will generate additional noise and smell .We are within a valley where noise already resonates. Walton Hill Cottage has a mill pond where on occasion walkers stray, this will increase. .