Up da te September 30th 2019
A pplication 16/2010N continues to struggle with the reserved matters. These are being dealt with under application 19/3992N and 19/3985D . A number of reports from CE officers have been added during September.
1 . PROW troubles continue with several errors and corrections being made to get the design and maintenance of footpath 14 and 15 to a satisfactory level. We are still awaiting the outcome of HM Inspectors report on the diversion o FP14 and condition 9 cannot be met until that decision is made. However the PROW officer is still unhappy with the FP as they do not include the buffer zone between the hedge and the path as recommended by the Nature Conservation officer.
2 Nature Conservation officer :
This report, although not wholly supportive, does make the point that a number of residents and PC have also done that current site layout does not allow room for the ‘buffer zone’ between the woodland wildlife corridor and the gardens of houses 1 – 6 identified on the new layout. I quote from James Baggaley’s report:
The application site also falls within an indicative wildlife corridor, as shown in the neighbourhood plan, associated with the adjacent stream corridor. The neighbourhood plan recommends a 15m non-developer able buffer zone adjacent to the wildlife corridor. The currently proposed buffer is reduced to 7.5m at its narrowest and therefore is not in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan policy.
Other concerns refer to the fact that the veteran ash tree supports a bat roost and lighting on the site must be of a type and duration not to interfere with their habits. That means low level lighting in all senses and with an appropriate ‘lighting regime ’ .
3 . Principle landscape Architect’s report:
Again the Officer starts by making the same point about the 15m buffer zone… ‘
The layout appears to have changed significantly from the Revised Indicative Layout drawing (Ref B050-160831-7022 ) submitted as part of the outline planning permission 16/2010N which provided a 15m non-developable buffer zone, as recommended in the Neighbourhood Plan and also specifically referred to by the Appeal Inspector (Appeal Decision APP/R0660/W/16/3165643 , para 28). This boundary buffer now appears to have been significantly reduced. (my emphasis)
They are listening or at least seeing what we are seeing !
He continues by pointing out a number of problems on the site layout with missing hedges and the fact that the red line outlining the site is not accurate – a point I have mentioned before as it strays into peoples properties at times. It also appears that the gap between Plot 9B and the site boundary is less than 2m while not showing the hedge at that point. And having footpath 14 running along this strip.
4. Strategic Housing Officer’s report:
‘ Object to this application’
The problem here is that the site shows only 4 affordable properties and the officer says that it should be 5! he points out that Bunbury has a waiting list of 28 (18x 1 bedroom, 8x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3bedroom dwellings). Three units should be for rent and 2 for ‘intermediate tenure’ code for shared ownership. And where is the affordable housing statement!
So this development is not going to progress until all these issues are dealt with and resolved.
Update August 28th 2019
A new reserved application ( 19/3985D ) has been lodged with Cheshire East Planning Dept. The documents deal with a series of conditions laid down by the HM Inspector namely 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14. Perhaps of immediate interest to residents is the changes in the site layout. While no formal document is titled ‘New Layout’ i is quite clear that some note has been taken of the objects to the layout given in previous versions of the application. The best way I can illustrate this is through a direct comparison of the new layout and the previous version.
1 . Vesrion issued in 18/6338N
New layout in 19/3985D
The first change that pops out of the new documents is the alterations to the site layout. They are not dramatic. Adjustments might be a better expression of what they show.
A major concern was the proximity of house 6 to the rear of No. 9 Wakes Meadow. It is now shown moved back from the rear fence creating more separation space. This has been partly achieved by moving the house westward so that the planned rear garden is reduced and the space at the front increased. Number 6 also appears to have lost a separate garage while the new dwelling to the east , number 7 on the plans, has gained a garage. House 6 and 5 are now fully aligned while house number 4 has been moved forward and the hard standing has switched sides.
The next important change is the space given to the root area around the vintage ash between houses 7 and 10. The tree survey (see below) indicated that the original plans had reduced the protection afforded to the tree with both properties intruding into the ”protected root area. This has been achieved by pushing house number 7 westward and reducing space between the house and the garage it has now acquired. It also appear that number 7 has also have been moved forward toward the fence separating it with No. 8 Wakes Meadow. This would mean the major part of its garden would lie under the canopy of the oak tree T2 shown in the tree survey. Apart from the obvious objection I can anticipate considerable struggles to get the canopy reduced if not the felling of the tree.
Update August 10th 2019:
Application 18/6338D withdrawn.
This application sought to discharge planning conditions 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 14. So why has it been withdrawn? Once the site was given outline planning consent the Planning Officers must guide the applicant to a successful outcome if at all possible . We know that a meeting was held in the field between the developer and the Planning Department representative to resolve some problems. I believe the outcome of that meeting was the recognition that the application would be refused in it current form. Rather than let that happen the developers have with drawn and will now consider how to make a successful application to obtain agreement on the reserved matters.
Did the objections we made have an effect ? . Undoubtedly. Here are some of the key points made in the PC’s submission:
It does not fulfill a number of pre-consent conditions listed in HM Inspectors report schedule (Appeal Decision APP/R0660/W/16/3165643 ) namely:
Condition (8) with reference to the objection to the current (modified) site layout made by Jennifer Miller, Definitive Map Officer, PROW Team, Cheshire East Council. An appeal is ongoing and this condition CANNOT be met until the outcome is decided.
Condition (14) i ) levels of adjoining gardens; etc … still no shown on any plan. It is not possible to identify the levels of adjoining gardens. This is necessary to be clear about the impact this development will have on existing residents.
The proposed development does not comply with a number of Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan policies:
1 . The Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan (BNP) states under Housing Policy H5 Design:
.. not be adversely affected through overlooking, loss of light or outlook, over dominance or general disturbance.
The inspector also commented on the problem in that the field is in fact higher at several points than houses in Wakes Meadow and that needs attention…I appreciate that existing occupiers would have their outlook changed but not so much as to cause unacceptable harm to their living conditions. ( para. 21) These plans propose a serious loss of privacy and amenity to existing residents. Specifically along the northern boundary where they would dominate over existing, lower properties. In the case of house C2 in plan E, it comes very close to their boundary and represent a complete loss of privacy to No 9 Wakes Meadow. To the east , the affordable houses also dominate the gardens and outlook from the three dwellings along Bunbury Lane.
2 . The application also fails to meet BNP Policy LC1 – Built environment: namely that new developments should:
. . . demonstrate a high quality of design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers of the proposed development, at the same time ensuring that the amenities of neighbouring properties will not be adversely affected.
These poorly and uniformly designed executive homes fail to meet many of the Village Design Statements (appendix 2) resulting in a congested development. Inadequate planting and unfriendly high fences.
Policy ENV3 -Woodland, Trees, Hedgerows, Sandstone Banks, Walls, Boundary Treatment and Paving.
Included in the policy are the statements:
A ll new development close to existing mature trees will be expected to have in place an arboricultural method statement to BS5837 standard or equivalent before any work commences
The new site plan seems to be an attempt to fulfill this requirement. All it shows is the root Protection Zones of each of the major trees in and around the site and how the houses trespass on these zones This does not meet the standards of BS5837
Future Growth Potential (Crown height and spread).
No shade footprint throughout the day based on future growth potential.
Documenting health and any defects
Preliminary management recommendations
Remaining useful life of the tree etc.
3 . The western border of the site backs onto a stream – a tributary of the River Gowy and designated a Wildlife Corridor:
Policy ENV7 – Buffer Zones and Wildlife Corridors opens with the statement: The existing woodlands, wildlife sites, drainage ditches, brooks and culverts will be maintained and enhanced and, where appropriate, new buffer zones and wildlife corridors will be created to increase the biodiversity of the plan area.This is designated in the Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan (BNP) as a Wildlife corridor in Policy BIO 1 – Bunbury Wildlife Corridor (Map Reference Appendix C Map 1 BNP).The designated area should incorporate all semi–natural habitat along the river corridor and include a non–developable buffer zone to protect the corridor from issues such as ground water and light pollution , and the spread of invasive garden species.The 15m buffer zone is specified by the CE Principal Nature Conservation Officer and repeated by HM Inspector in giving her consent to the development at appeal.
Finally in reference to 18/6356D the results of the infiltration testing revealed that the site will need a substantial drainage system that will feed into the brook. This needs an environmental assessment of the impact on the brook before being approved. Such a proposal could pose a serious threat to the wildlife corridor.
Upd ate July 10th 2019
A new element in application 18/6338N appeared earlier this week. It was under the heading of ‘Reserved matter application for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of outline planning permission 16/2010N ' ; ; ; ; . But what it actually boiled down to was a tree survey or rather parts of a tree survey as I will explain.
I was not familiar with BS5837 (2012). Like many BSi proclamations I know they are there to set standards in a wide range of fields. If a tool or product carried a BS Kitemark it was a guarantee of basic quality. So, when this update to the Oak Gardens field development arrived, I was unclear as to what it was all about. It appeared to be the same site plan with additional data about the trees. That then leads to the interest in BS5837or to give it its full title:
Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction
The process of developing a tree Protection Plan is laid out in the documentation and requires the following stages:
1 . Topographical Survey – a map showing the location of the trees , relevant spot heights adjacent tot the trees. The position of the all treees on the site, or overhanging the site. The crown spread (shown in green and blue areas on the map . the extent of hedges, stumps and shrub masses.
2 , Soil Assessment:
This is undertaken to assess whether the soil is shrinkable which could cause damage to structures without appropriate protection.
3 . Tree Survey
Thi s is clearly a key part and I want to quote directly from the Standard to make my point.
The survey classifies trees according to a standard set of criteria:
U : Not worth keeping ast they have little ‘value’ ; – i.e. they are dead, dying or won’t last 10yrs .
A: Trees of high quality. Life expectancy of 40 years or more. Many examples around the site of English Oaks and Ash trees and fall into this category. They are seen mainly as visual assets of the landscape. ( A2 ) . The canopy of these trees are shown in green.
B: Moderate quality with a life expectancy of at least 20yrs . The canopy of these trees are shown on the plan in blue.
C: Tree of low quality
18.104.22.168 Tree surveys undertaken after a detailed design has been prepared can identify significant conflicts: in such cases, the nature of and need for the proposed development should be set against the quality and values of affected trees. The extent to which the design can be modified to accommodate those trees meriting retention (see Clause 5) should be carefully considered.
However, it is my contention that the survey or the report of the survey as presented in the new plan and the subject of the current consultation is incomplete. What additional data that needs to be included is specified in BS5837(20120? Well, what I can’t find is :
- Stem diameter
i g h t above ground of the first significant branch and direction of growth. This is needed to inform ground clearance, crown\stem ratio, and shading.
- Life stage ( e.g. young , mature, etc )
- Preliminary management recommendations
The purpose of the survey is to inform the site layout design. As the design of the layout has not changed following the that suggests the survey is either irrelevant or has been ignored. I believe the evidence suggests that the design of the site should be altered. In a number of places proposed house locations intrude into the root protection areas (RPA’s) (Houses, 1A , 7B , 10B , 11B )
A number of the trees have protection orders but this is ignored. All the oak trees and Ashes are protected and this should place constraints on the site layout design and the impact of the construction process. No mention of these aspects are currently mentioned in any new documentation. The BS5837(2012) states:
5.2.4 Particular care is needed regarding the retention of large, mature, over-mature or veteran trees which become enclosed within the new development (see 4.5.11 ) . Where such trees are retained, adequate space should be allowed for their long-term physical retention and future maintenance
Yet we still see serious trespass into the RPA of the veteran Ash tree 5T by plot 10(B) and 7(B)
The tree protection plan also appears to be missing. It may appear later but should show:
the location of protect barriers to form construction exclusion zones around retained tresss (all TPO’s) Where access to RPA’s is required then ground protection measures need to be in place and shown on the plan.
There is much more that could be said on this topic but I have gone on at some length already and many may feel that enough is enough. I will end with the following quote from the Standard :
6.1.1A precautionary approach towards tree protection should be adopted and any operations, including access, proposed within the RPA (or crown spread where this is greater) should be described within an arboricultural method statement, in order to demonstrate that the operations can be undertaken with minimal risk of adverse impact on trees to be retained.
Update: April 23rd 2019
The Planning Officer e-mailed to say the missing Species impact assessment update’ specified in condition 10 of the consent will be ‘confidential’ and only seen by the Nature Conservation Officers.
The report of the Principal Officer again reinforces the points made in their original response to the reserved matters application ( 18/6338N ) . Better protection for the vintage Ash, a 15m buffer zone against the woodland on the west of the site and other details list below. However, the Officer goes on to agree that the Wildlife Habitat management Plan is OK and the impact on species is mitigated by the plans submitted.
Update May 1st
It appears the issue that requires a ‘confidential’ update relates to the badger sett adjacent to the site. Apparently the sett is described in the words of the conservation officer as ‘inactive’ at the time of the survey.
Badgers and their setts are protected and it is an offence to disturb badgers, to damage their sett or restrict access to the sett. Was this sett to be included in the extended gardens on the original plans? Those gardens on the properties adjacent to the wildlife corridor originally had gates leading into the corridor and fence lines that extended to the banks of the brook.
As noted in several of the comments on this proposed development (18/6338N) a number of details were missing from the application. That meant it failed to meet all the conditions of the consent. Despite the public consultation having ended on the 13th February additions are still being added by the developers.
A couple of new tactics has emerged that I have not seen before on an application. Firstly, has been the astonishing failure to submit a full application that at least attempts to meet the conditions laid down at the time of the consent (see previous Oak Garden blogs). Why the developers thought this would a sensible approach is hard to fathom. It may lead to delays and request to re-submit. Although neither has happened to date the decision date is less than a fortnight away (16th April).
Secondly we have seen the use of secondary applications alongside the main submission. Next to 18/6338N we have had 18/6356D both of which closed for public consultation on the 13th February. Did you notice 18/6356D? Well most of us missed it and nobody but the Parish Council made a submission. While it deals a lot with drainage issues the impact on the environment of any subsequent scheme is potentially serious. The plan is to install a system that drains into the adjacent brook. The PC is rightly demanding an environmental impact assessment before any work goes ahead.
Now we have a new application 19/1582D that seeks to discharge conditions 10 and 11 that was ignored in the original application. To remind you theses were:
10) Before the approval of the final reserved matters application, an updated protected species impact assessment and mitigation strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
11) Before the approval of the final reserved matters application a habitat management plan to cover the life of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. From the day of commencement of development, the management plan shall be adhered to thereafter.
The main substance of the application is the habitat maintenance report. Note that this is NOT the updated protected species impact assessment and mitigation policy. It comes with an amended layout plan (see below) to show some mitigation features, namely Compost Bays (7), Hibernacula Mounds (3), habitat Mounds (3) and the Ecology Area (pond and surrounding area. The layout also gives details of planting. This is to be welcomed. we may regret the original consent but we can still hope for the best development.
In correspondence included on the site the developers have responded to the criticism by the environment (Heritage & Design-Forestry) officer. This is the changes they have made:
1. Reserved Matters – Access gates have been removed from the rear garden fences belonging to the houses on the western boundary preventing access into the Ecological area (read ‘Wildlife corridor’)
2. The ecological area is now not divided into separate areas, but is now an open stretch of land to maintain the favourable conservation status of the affected great crested newt population and will deliver adequate compensation for the priority/protected species present.
3. There is a gate now placed at one end of the ecological area to allow access for management purposes.
4. Lighting – Only low level pillar lighting is proposed for the development to allow for illuminating the road and pathways for each home. A example attached (see CE site). No high level street lighting is therefore proposed.
The developers then go on to seek assurance that these amendments and the Habitat Management Report will secure approval of the conditions 10 and 11. The Habitat management Report is good in my inexpert opinion, although one must add the usual caveat that it does have to be implemented.
However as the updated impact assessment on protected species is missing the application is still fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, the revised layout plan does not show any buffer zone to protect the wildlife zone. Without such a zone will the ecology of the corridor be safe? It is also in contravention of the Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan (BNP) Policy ENV7-Buffer Zones and Wildlife Corridors. This was the subject of several comments in the public submissions on the application. It has been ignored – so far. Also the BNP Policy ENV3-Woodland, trees, hedgerows, etc., requires that :
all new development close to existing mature trees will be expected to have in place an arboriculural method statement to BS5837 standard….
(BNP page 24 )
At present I can find no such statement. Another ‘satelite‘ application may address these deficiencies – we live in hope, I suppose.