Westcott Meadows Development

Village MeetingMay 17, 2011

View of the application site in relation to Ranmore (with indicative sightlines from where the site is)

View of Springfield Meadow looking east out from the proposed

development site

Eastern end of site looking South East – this is the proposed ‘escape route’ (top right of photo) to be used

when the entrance to the site floods

Evidence of groundwater flooding at the Meadow (Winter 2009) .

British Geological Survey state that this area is at “high susceptibility to groundwater flooding and that this should be considered in all land-use

planning decisions”

Issues facing Springfield Meadow site: • Traffic• Flooding (groundwater and surface water)• Access and escape routes subject to flood• Setting – AONB, adjacent to greenbelt

Traffic difficulties in one car wide Westcott Street

Agenda

• Welcome• How we defeated last Taylor Wimpey application• Committee’s 10 grounds for refusal against which the new application is to be judged• Detailed examination of new application• What could happen if permission is granted• Points for objection:

– Traffic– Listed buildings– Ecology/Flooding/Landscape– Amenity

• Financial situation & fundraising• Letter writing campaign and advice• Westcott Village Association support• District Councillor• County Councillor• Wrap up

How we defeated last Taylor Wimpey Application

Prior Reasons for Refusal

1) Situated within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent to Green Belt, the development would fail to conserve and enhance the existing special landscape qualities of this area

2) ...would lead to a significant increase in traffic to Westcott Street impacting the free flow of traffic and highway safety

3) ...would lead to a significant increase in traffic to Balchins Lane impacting the free flow of traffic and highway safety

4) ...would lead to an increase in traffic along an alleged public right of way impacting the safety of vulnerable users

5) ...would lead to a significant increase in traffic and disturbance around the grade II listed Lower Springfield Farmhouse

6) ...may have an adverse impact on existing bat, reptile and badger populations using the site7) ...may have adverse implications from flooding to the safeguarding of people and property and the

site’s access8) No completed legal agreement regarding affordable housing9) No completed legal agreement regarding infrastructure contribution10) ...would give rise to an unacceptable increase in noise and general disturbance arising from

additional traffic along Westcott Street, to the detriment of residents

Taylor Wimpey Application

Submitted 28 April 2011

For 14 dwellings, 4 affordable housing at lower Springfield Road, Westcott

• 26 Documents, 814 pages, including …….• Traffic report 246 pages• Flood report 159 pages• Ecological reports 107 pages• Protected species reports 107 pages• Archaeological Reports 50 pages• Support information 33 pages• Most reports very similar to those in previous

submission

Proposed Development Site

14 Dwellings

Current Plan

‘

The New Application

Original Application This Application

5 Bedroom - 5

4 Bedroom 7 3

3 Bedroom 14 4

2 Bedroom 13 2

Total Bedrooms 96 53

Total Homes 34 14

Total Car Parks 77 43

Entrance to Site

Proposed Development Site

House Elevations

House Elevations

Street Scene1

An Example: Traffic Observations

• TW data collected 25-28 March 2010. Does not include traffic impact of “The Pound”

• About 260 vehicles currently use Westcott Street• About 96 of these travel out in morning peak hour

(37%)• TW allocate 43 car parks so assume 43 vehicles

(53 bedrooms)• TW claim only 6 vehicles will depart at morning

peak hour (14%)• TW claim no significant increase to traffic and

no perceptible impact!

Another Example: From TW Report*

“The site lies within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which

is recognised as being a landscape of very high quality. The landscape of the

site however is relatively undistinguished, comprising a single field of rough

grassland. It is influenced by its proximity to the existing settlement edge,

with the development at Springfield Road very prominent in views across the

site. The eclectic mix of rear boundary treatments along the southern site

boundary, create an untidy edge to the settlement; and this, combined

with the collection of poultry cages at the northern boundary, give the site, a slightly degraded, urban fringe feel. There are some notable landscape

features contained within the site, including the mature woodland alongside

Pipp Brook. It is therefore considered that the landscape within the northern

part of the site is of medium quality, however within the southern part of the

site adjacent to the development edge it is of low quality, with a good ability to

accommodate change”.

* Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, CSA/1562/004c April 2011

What if TW Application is successful?

TW’s Options if successful are:• Proceed as planned – build the dwellings• Sell the property with Planning Permission to

another developer and take a handsome profit• Apply for additional houses as done in “The Pound”

where 4 dwellings were increased to 7 after planning permission received

If TW are again unsuccessful they will probably Appeal or possibly consider a sale without planning permission

Traffic

Traffic – now!

Construction traffic

Traffic

•

Construction traffic

Listed Buildings

Listed building

Environmental Issues

•Landscape Impact

•Flood Risk

•Ecology

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)

XAONB Management PlanDevelopment will respect the special landscape character, giving particular attention to potential impacts on ridgelines, significant views, tranquility and light pollution. (Also see CS13)

Reason for refusal ‘The proposed development would fail to conserve and enhance the existing special landscape qualities of this area, harmful to its landscape character and appearance and constituting development conspicuous from the adjacent Green Belt (conflicts with CS13 & ENV23)

Site in an AONB!

• Methodology non-standard – no matrix of the procedure 1. Assess sensitivity of receptor, 2. Assess magnitude of change, 3. Sensitivity x magnitude = Significance of effect. Their approach too subjective!

• Unclear is assessment approach has been agreed with Surrey Hills AONB or MVDC?

• Limited value placed on the site’s inclusion within the AONB. Adopting their own detailed assessment of the landscape quality of the site… effectively challenging the AONB designation.

• The landscape of the site however is undistinguished, ….lending it an urban fringe character. Surely edge of rural settlement? Assessment is opinion-based.

• No assessment of impact on Westcott Conservation Area

• No visualisation of the development with projected roof heights etc.

• No map showing the Zone of Visual Impact - where you can see it from.

• Local visual receptors are highly sensitive (being residential property immediately adjacent) so more detail required on the effects on neighbouring property.

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)

Visual Impact (from within the AONB)?

Views from the east – ‘the magnitude of change is considered to be low /negligible, and the significance slight adverse / insignificant.’

Views from the west – ‘the magnitude of change, as a result of development would therefore be low and the visual significance would be slight adverse becoming insignificant’.

Views from the south – ‘the visual significance slight adverse, becoming beneficial as the landscaping within the open space matures’.

TW Conclusion

The assessment concludes that any impacts on the very high quality landscape of the Suffolk Hills AONB and the open landscape of the Green Belt would be neutral, and the scheme would not be visually intrusive or adversely affect the character of the adjoining landscape. Similarly, any impacts on views from within the AONB would be insignificant.

Flood Risk

Reason for refusal:

Insufficient information has been submitted to fully assess the potential for groundwater flooding across the site. The possible implications of such flooding events in relation to both the safeguarding of people and property, and the site’s accessibility, particularly as such events would be likely to occur at the same time as the risk of fluvial flooding is increased, could result in an unacceptable level of risk with restricted accessibility and means of escape from the proposed development.

Flood risk still an issue at Westcott Meadow

Three different types of flooding (highlighted to MVDC):•Flooding from the Pipp Brook (‘Fluvial’)•Groundwater flooding from the underlying aquifer (‘Folkestone Formation’ - Source Protection Zone [EA])•Surface water flooding

The local knowledge of residents helped Westcott Meadow Action Group demonstrate to MVDC that these flooding issues are a real problem on the site – which is essentially a floodplain

Flood risk from the Pipp Brook

Situated in Environment Agency Flood Risk Zones:

– Zone 2 (1 in 1000 chance of happening each year)

– Zone 3a (1 in 100 chance of happening each year)

– Zone 3b (1 in 20 year chance of happening each year)

Flood risk affects:• The site • Main access route• Escape route

Springfield Meadow site

“the Meadow has always been a flood plain..”

The Pipp Brook spilling onto its flood plain 2009

Winter flooding at the Meadow 2009

“We moved here, from Bailey Road in 2002, and I have noted that every year since I took up residence in Springfield Road, that after a rainfall, this area of the meadow floods”

Flood in Westcott Street – entrance to proposed site adjacent to this photo

Pipp Brook approximately 2-3 feet higher than Summer flow levels

Key Points on Flooding

(source: BBC)

• Development site, access road and ‘escape route’ (between houses on Springfield Rd) are in a 1 in 20 year flood risk zone – an island development??

• Susceptibility to groundwater flooding (i.e. the water table appearing above the surface) = HIGH

• Taylor Wimpey’s own report has shown that groundwater is less than 1m below the surface

• New monitoring of groundwater levels showed that water levels rose by more than 1m between Dec 10 and Jan 11!

• Site should have been monitored for 12 months…

“..driest Spring for 50 years, ...warmest April for 350 years..”

Concluding remarks

• Flood risk data and villagers’ own experience tell us that the site floods regularly – both from the Pipp Brook and from groundwater.

• Flood risk will only increase with Climate Change

• As well as this site being wholly unsuitable for many other reasons, key Government policy (PPS25) states “inappropriate development in flood risk areas should be avoided”

• Development is only permissible in flood risk areas in exceptional circumstances where there are no other available sites in areas of lower risk, and the benefits of that development outweigh the risks from flooding.

• Please post any further photos or quotes of flooding incidents on or around the site on our website or talk to us afterwards

Ecology

- Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations (2010) - Badgers Act 1992- Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS 9)- Core Strategy of MVDC (e.g. CS15)

Insufficient information has been submitted to fully assess the potential impacts of the proposed development on existing badger, bat and reptile populations using the site. In order to satisfactorily assess such possible impacts further surveys are required to be completed. Additional surveys would identify the level of use of the site by these species and stipulate any appropriate mitigation measures which should then be implemented to ensure a minimum of disturbance… (Conflicts with CS15, ENV15, PPS9)

Badgers

SWT - would recommend therefore that a bait marking exercise is carried out to help determine social group boundaries.

ESBPS - The territorial boundaries of different social groups could only be determined with a bait marking project.

TW – assessed ‘activity’ on site – confirming badgers from south and north use the site, but no bait-marking and thus no assessment of the importance of the site!

Reptiles

SWT - we would suggest that further reptile survey work be carried out next year when reptiles are active to provide more details of size of any population of reptiles on site.

TW – No further surveys! Desk study based on out dated data.

http://www.surrey-arg.org.uk/

Bats

TW – No further surveys!

TW – No assessment of a known roost

TW – No lighting plan

SWT - The planning authority should seek further information from the applicant on the exact location of this roost and the potential effect of this development on this bat roost.

Landscape Plan(s)

Landscape Plan/POS

No net loss of Biodiversity?

- 50% of site under hard-standing/turf- Light pollution/lack lighting plan- Disturbance to wildlife mitigation- Loss of existing hedges- Small trees- No management plan (engage SWT, NT etc)- PPS9: protect, mitigate, enhance!

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

The CEMP would include full details of:• Register of environmental aspects [effects of the Scheme];• Roles and responsibilities;• Communication and co-ordination;• Training and awareness;• Operational control;• Checking and corrective action;• Environmental control measures.

The environmental aspects of a CEMP should include: Wildlife nature conservation Trees Invasive species Cultural Heritage Noise Air quality & dust Water resources Waste Soils Highways & traffic Protection of amenity and services

A CEMP will provide a documented procedure for controlling environmental impacts and for preventing disruption to local residents during the construction phase of the project.

Taylor Wimpey Application = 26 Docs, 814pp vs CEMP = 1Doc, 2pp

Take Home….

• Landscape - LVIA insufficient to conserve and enhance the existing special landscape qualities of this area.

Reason for refusal still stands.

• Flooding – Flood risk still present. Reason for refusal still stands.

• Protected Species – insufficient information/survey data submitted to assess impacts. Reason for refusal still stands.

• CEMP – insufficient!

• Landscape plan/POS – requires lighting plan & agreed management plan (with funds from TW).

We need your letters to convince MVDC!

The Nature Reserve

Need More….?

Read the TW application

westcottmeadow.ning.com

Speak to Craig, Debbie or Rond

Amenity

Financial situation & Fundraising

Objection to Application

How to Object to the second Application by Taylor Wimpey

Martin Pearcy May 2011

...nothing has changed...

Guidelines on How to Object to a Planning

Application

Martin Pearcy May 2011

•Comments to the case officer Miss Helen Lowe or the Head of Planning (Corporate Head of Service) Andrew Bircher at Mole Valley District Council - email: planning@molevalley.gov.uk .

•In Writing: Head of Planning at the Council Offices, Pippbrook, Dorking, RH4 1SJ.

•Copy to Cllr James Friend cllr.friend@molevalley.gov.uk

•Copy to Rt Hon Paul Beresford dukem@parliament.uk

•Quote the application number MO/2011/0528

•On line – section provided in the planning application pages, upload your WORD file letter.

•Find the application via the quicklink on the http://westcottmeadow.ning.com site

•Within 21 days of the notification letter, therefore by May 26th 2011.

Finding the Application – Quick Link

Martin Pearcy May 2011

The Application on Line

Martin Pearcy May 2011

On Line Objection

Martin Pearcy May 2011

Guidelines on How to Object to an Application

Martin Pearcy May 2011

•Your letter/email must include your name and address or it will be rejected.

•Letters of representation will be available on line (within 5 days of receipt) to view by the public, or at the planning office (even after the application has been decided).

•Individual letters will be acknowledged in writing, identical letters will however be treated as a petition and will not be acknowledged---its important that letters are not copied or “prescribed” for this reason.

Guidelines on How to Object to an Application

Martin Pearcy May 2011

•Comments must be relevant to planning issues, such as Environment, Services, Transport, Traffic and Parking etc. See Appendix list.

•Comments on private interests such as property value will not be taken into account, loss of private view, personal remarks, boundary disputes are not legitimate issues. Note: Impact on a public view/visual amenity is a valid objection.

•You can refer to your last letter objecting to the 34 units. But the details of that application do not have relevance in this application. If you don't have a copy of your letter, we can help retrieve it.

•Make it easy for the planning committee and include the reference number MO/2011/0528 and description of the application at the top of the letter.

•Applications that receive more than 20 letters of objection or 50 signatures of petition will allow a representative of the objector and the Parish Council (Village Association) to make representation at the hearing of the application.

End

Martin Pearcy May 2011

Appendix 1: Legitimate Objections

Martin Pearcy July 2010

•Loss of light or overshadowing•Overlooking/loss of privacy•Visual amenity - definition - It is the collective impact of the visual components which make a site or an area pleasant to be in (but not loss of private view)•Adequacy of parking/loading/turning•Highway safety•Traffic generation•Noise and disturbance resulting from use•Hazardous materials•Smells•Loss of trees•Effect on listed building and conservation area•Layout and density of building•Design, appearance, character and materials•Landscaping•Road access•Local, strategic, regional and national planning policies•Government circulars, orders and statutory instruments•Disabled persons' access•Compensation and awards of costs against the Council at public enquiries•Proposals in the Development Plan•Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions)•Nature conservation•Archaeology

Westcott Village Association

District Councillor

County Councillor

Conclusions

• This second application is flawed in the same ways as the first and should be rejected by Council for the same reasons

• Data is flawed and conclusions questionable, despite reduced number of dwellings. e.g. Traffic and environmental studies

• The development does not respect and enhance the character and distinctiveness of Westcott and the surrounding area

• This proposal is for another era and another place and should be rejected

• The existing site is undeliverable in terms of housing and should be removed from the Reserved Housing list

• Westcott Villagers need to write to the Council with their objections, the battle is far from over!

End

Martin Pearcy July 2010

Appendix 1: Legitimate Objections

Martin Pearcy July 2010

•Loss of light or overshadowing•Overlooking/loss of privacy•Visual amenity - definition - It is the collective impact of the visual components which make a site or an area pleasant to be in (but not loss of private view)•Adequacy of parking/loading/turning•Highway safety•Traffic generation•Noise and disturbance resulting from use•Hazardous materials•Smells•Loss of trees•Effect on listed building and conservation area•Layout and density of building•Design, appearance, character and materials•Landscaping•Road access•Local, strategic, regional and national planning policies•Government circulars, orders and statutory instruments•Disabled persons' access•Compensation and awards of costs against the Council at public enquiries•Proposals in the Development Plan•Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions)•Nature conservation•Archaeology