The Pill & Easton-in-Gordano Parish Council has written to Land Improvement Holdings (LIH), the owner of the land that wishes to develop 175–200 homes at Court House Farm, east of Gordano Services. We’ve raised resident concerns about traffic, safety, infrastructure, Green Belt, and health impacts near the M5, rooted in our Neighbourhood Plan (supported by 81.34% at a referendum in 2021). We seek detailed answers before proceeding—read our full letter and questions below.

Text of the Letter

The Pill & Easton-in-Gordano Parish Council (PEIG PC) writes to formally express significant concerns raised by our residents regarding your proposed development of 175–200 homes at Court House Farm.
Our community is deeply troubled by the potential impacts on traffic, pedestrian safety, infrastructure, Green Belt integrity, and health due to the site’s proximity to the M5 motorway. Grounded in the Pill & Easton-in-Gordano Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2026, we seek detailed responses to address these concerns before proceeding further. Below, we summarise the key issues and outline specific questions requiring your attention.

Summary of Residents’ Concerns

1. Traffic and Congestion

Residents fear that 175–200 homes, potentially adding 200–400 cars (versus your estimate of 0.9 cars per dwelling, or ~160), will overwhelm Pill’s already saturated roads. This higher range aligns with the South West UK average of 1.40 cars per household (Department for Transport, 2022), significantly exceeding your projection and amplifying the traffic burden by up to 280 vehicles for 200 homes – a critical discrepancy given the area’s rural context and limited infrastructure. Narrow streets like Springfield Road, Heywood Terrace, and Churchpath Road are choked with on-street parking, while Court Hay risks becoming a rat run, Church Road faces bottlenecks and shortcut hazards (e.g., Debeccas Lane, Priory Road bends), and Marsh Lane is an overburdened rat run. The scale is deemed “unreasonable” for roads too narrow to allow two cars to pass, exacerbating congestion at Crockerne Primary School drop-offs and potential rail station access, threatening village-wide chaos. Our Neighbourhood Plan emphasises minimising traffic congestion and ensuring pedestrian safety, standards unmet by this proposal.

2. Marsh Lane Access

Both vehicular access options (A and B) onto Marsh Lane are fiercely opposed as unsafe and disruptive. Option A’s right turn near a blind bend clashes with Church Road’s narrow, parked conditions and peak Portbury Dock/school traffic, while Option B reroutes Marsh Lane through the estate near play areas, risking child safety and prioritising the development over residents and port workers. A 270-metre narrow stretch can’t handle two cars, let alone lorries, threatening the 7.5-tonne-limited railway bridge and pedestrian safety on this popular route (Camp Road). Residents demand no vehicular access from the estate to Marsh Lane, preferring that entrance to be pedestrian/cycle-only.

3. St George’s Hill Access

Residents propose St George’s Hill as the sole safe entry/exit but highlight its challenges: right turns to the A369 are difficult at peak times due to traffic backups, an uncontrolled T-junction is “unacceptable,” and its proximity to the A369 junction risks accidents. Direct A369 exit is unfeasible, making St George’s Hill the focus but requiring urgent safety upgrades (e.g., traffic lights).

4. Green Belt / Grey Belt Status

The potential loss of Court House Farm’s Green Belt status is fiercely contested, with LIH’s “grey belt” claim rejected as misleading – no official designation exists, as North Somerset Council has not reclassified it under the NPPF (effective 12 December 2024), and delisting remains a rigorous Local Plan process, not a formality, given NSC’s 7.2-year housing supply and 112% Housing Delivery Test score (2023). As Marsh Lane’s last significant green space, it likely serves key Green Belt purposes (e.g., preventing sprawl, safeguarding countryside), unassessed by LIH, while public and expert resistance to “grey belt” ambiguity, evidenced by CPRE critiques and local sentiment, further undermines their speculative stance. Residents, prefer it remain green, feeling boxed in by port expansion, consistent with our Neighbourhood Plan’s commitment to protecting valuable landscapes.

5. Proximity to M5 Motorway

The site’s closeness to the M5 raises health alarms over noise and air pollution, contradicting LIH’s “happy, healthy places” claim. Three play areas within 350 metres of the motorway expose children to respiratory risks, per scientific studies. Noise barriers are inadequate against prevailing wind-borne particles, and trees offer slow relief – permanent barriers are demanded pre-occupancy, with play areas deemed unsuitable. Our Neighbourhood Plan prioritises sustainable development that supports community well being, which this proposal challenges.

Parish Council Position

The Parish Council cannot support this proposal without substantial action addressing these concerns. Our 2021 Neighbourhood Plan outlines a number of policies forms the legal basis for our objection, which we are prepared to lodge formally with North Somerset Council (NSC). We require detailed data, mitigation plans, collaboration, and continued engagement should further concerns arise to allow us to proceed responsibly.

Questions for Lands Improvement Holdings

Traffic and Congestion

1. What is your precise daily vehicle trip estimate for 175–200 homes, and how will this not exceed the capacity of Pill’s narrow, footpath-free roads?
2. How will you prevent Court Hay from becoming a rat run without footpaths, ensuring pedestrian safety?
3. What measures will mitigate Church Road’s bottleneck and pedestrian hazards, given its lack of footpaths and existing congestion?
4. How will Marsh Lane, already a narrow rat run without continuous footpaths, handle added traffic?
5. Which roads (e.g., Springfield, Heywood, Churchpath) will see traffic increases, and how will you address their lack of footpaths and limited capacity?
6. How will you mitigate Crockerne Primary’s drop-off congestion with more residents?
7. Where is your traffic impact assessment for Pill’s roads, and will you share it?

Marsh Lane Access

8. How will Option A’s right turn near a blind bend ensure pedestrian safety on Marsh Lane’s footpath-free sections?
9. Why does Option B prioritise estate traffic over existing residents, and how will it protect Marsh Lane pedestrians?
10. How will construction traffic avoid Church Lane’s HGV restrictions?
11. How will added cars not endanger pedestrians on Marsh Lane’s 270-metre narrow stretch, why not keep it pedestrian/cycle-only as residents suggest?
12. How will you enforce Marsh Lane’s 7.5-tonne limit to protect the railway bridge?
13. How will increased Marsh Lane traffic not spill onto Court Hay and Church Road, worsening pedestrian risks?

St George’s Hill Access

14. Why not designate St George’s Hill as the sole access, safer for pedestrians – how will make it safer without footpaths?
15. How will you address right-turn risks onto the A369 at peak times, ensuring pedestrian safety – will you install traffic lights?
16. How will St George’s Hill’s proximity to the A369 junction avoid pedestrian hazards – where’s your capacity analysis?

Green Belt / Grey Belt Status

17. Why claim “grey belt” status without designation – what’s North Somerset Council’s current position?
18. How will you preserve Marsh Lane’s last green space, given recent biodiversity losses?
19. How will approval not enable further development (e.g., Markham Farm) – what assurances can you provide?
20. What measurable biodiversity gains will offset the Green Belt loss – where’s your evidence?

Additional Data and Mitigation

21. Where’s your assessment of roads without continuous footpaths (e.g., capacity, emergency access) – will you provide it?
22. What’s the motorway roundabout’s capacity and Church Road’s emergency access plan?
23. Will you fund pedestrian safety upgrades (e.g., footpaths) pre-construction, with legal commitments?
24. How will you mitigate traffic impacts village-wide – where’s your full impact study?
25. Why not reduce the development size to align with the Neighbourhood Plan – what’s your minimum viable scale?