Packsaddle Community Tea Party

I have been very pleased to help the Packsaddle Community Group organise the community tea party and consultation event at St Mary’s Hall on Saturday 15^th March, by agreeing to help fund the event, and other community activities, out of my councillor allocation of Mendip District Council’s Community Environment Fund (part of Mendip’s share of the Government’s New Homes Bonus grant, see previous article).

Packsaddle Park

I am now asking Mendip whether it can fund future improvements to your local park. If not, I hope to help Frome Town Council to take ownership, and to work with the Community Group and local residents to enhance the park as a community space. I have also been pushing for Mendip’s contractors to relocate the tree ring seats, to avoid further noise nuisance to neighbours this year.

Packsaddle housing development – Update July 2014:

Proposals to develop 107 new homes at the end of Packsaddle Way in open countryside have been withdrawn. The proposals (ref 2013/2608) met with over 130 objections from residents, including mine, as well as the Environment Agency, Frome Town Council and Mendip’s housing development officer, after a spirited campaign by local residents.  The developer amended the flood risk assessment, commissioned a report to assess the landscape and visual impacts, and revised the masterplan to fit in a drainage attenuation pond. Mendip planners sought a second opinion on the viability of development, as the developer tried to justify not providing any ‘affordable housing’ here. Earlier this year I asked the developers to withdraw their plans, and they now have done.  I understand they might try to have the site allocated for development in Part 2 of Mendip’s Local Plan, but we shall have to wait and see. For now though, the threat of development here has receded. Please see here for previous news including my letter of objection.

Previously I wrote as follows:

As you may be aware, a planning application has been submitted to Mendip District Council for the development of 107 new homes, in the field between Packsaddle Way, Innox Hill and Spring Gardens. The site is not allocated for development in Mendip’s Local Plan, and is open countryside outside the settlement boundary. Plans for housing here have been rejected four times before.

The submitted planning application and consultation comments, can be found on Mendip’s webpages (http://publicaccess.mendip.gov.uk/online-applications/, reference 2013/2608/OTS). The deadline for the official public consultation period was Wednesday 19 March. However, official consultation comments are still coming in, so you can still send your comments to Mendip’s planning department via email to dctechnical@mendip.gov.uk, or by post to: The Planning Department, Mendip District Council, Cannards Grave Road, Shepton Mallet BA4 5BT, quoting the ref: 2013/2608.

So far, objections have been made by 135 residents, Frome Town Council, Mendip’s Housing Development officer (on the lack of affordable housing), and the Environment Agency (on the need to reassess flood risks to demonstrate that more sustainable means of surface water attenuation have been considered, and to consider in detail the existing flood risks downhill at Jeffries Lane, Spring Gardens and Bradford Bridge, and how the development could affect flooding there).

I have been helping residents review and respond to the plans. I have submitted an objection myself, which is below:

Mendip District Council planning application 2013/2608

“I object to the application on the grounds that:

• The proposal would result in the intrusion of built form into the rural character and appearance of the area, harming the amenity value of the landscape.
• The plans would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance, including erosion of countryside.
• This harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the application including in terms of housing land supply.
• The proposals are contrary to Adopted Local Plan policies S1, Q1, Q3, Q4, Q9, SN2, SN7, EN3, EN4, and possibly also EN17.
• The arguments of the applicants are not sufficiently special to justify a departure from the Council’s policies, including those protecting the countryside.

Further reasons for my objection are set out below:

• The site is not allocated for development in Mendip District Council’s adopted Local Plan or draft Local Plan, or Frome Town Council’s draft Neighbourhood Plan. It is outside the settlement limit and is open agricultural green field countryside. Preparation of Mendip’s Local Plan Part 2, Site Allocations, has not yet commenced. The proposed development is therefore premature.
• The development in not necessary to meet Mendip District’s housing needs. Mendip DC’s submission to the Local Plan Examination explains that sufficient housing land will be available in the district to meet a 5 year housing land supply once sites which the Council has granted permission for (but where negotiations on Section 106 agreements are ongoing) are taken into account. Outline planning permission for a further 450 houses have been approved in outline (subject to a S106 agreement) at Southfield Farm, Frome.
• The site lies outside the development limit of Frome, established in Adopted Local Plan policy S1 – Settlement Policy, which states that ‘Outside the development limits identified on the Proposals Map, development will be strictly controlled and will only be permitted where it benefits economic activity, and maintains or enhances the environment, and does not foster growth in the need to travel.’  As the proposed development will not maintain or enhance the environment, and will foster growth in the need to travel, the application is contrary to policy S1.
• The development would lead to coalescence of the town of Frome with the small settlement of Spring Gardens as it would remove the landscape gap between the two settlements. Spring Gardens would lose its identity as a separate settlement as a result. Changes so significant as this should only be approved through the Local Plan process.
• Adopted Local Plan policy Q1 – Design Quality and Protection of Amenity, states that development will be permitted where its design relates satisfactorily to its surroundings, including in terms of impacts on the landscape, the amenity of neighbouring buildings and land uses, and amenity of occupiers of the development. The impact on the landscape has not been assessed by the applicants – no Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been submitted.  The applicants attempt to rely on the retention of the low boundary hedgerows to attempt to justify that the development would fit in with the existing landscape. It would not. The steeply sloping nature of the site means it is highly visible from countryside to the north, west and east of Frome, and from residences to the south, as existing hedgerows do not screen the-site. No structural landscape planting is proposed.  As in 1987, when the previous planning application was refused at appeal, it can be concluded that the site is exposed in views, is impossible to screen in views from the wider countryside looking towards Frome, and would result in unwanted intrusion into the attractive countryside landscape. Although not a ‘designated landscape’, the landscape character of the site has been identified as important in the Sustainability Appraisal for the Local Plan Examination (doc SD/43) which shows it in an area of ‘Good quality land which is prominent and important to the setting of the town’, and ‘steeply sloping land’.  Development of the site would damage and erode its attractive rural character. The development is therefore contrary to policy Q1.
• Adopted Local Plan policy Q4 – Landscape Design requires that Development will only be permitted where a landscaping scheme is provided which satisfactorily integrates the proposal with its surroundings, both visually and functionally.  As above, the applicants have not submitted a landscape scheme which integrates the proposal with its surroundings, and no structural landscaping is proposed, therefore the development is contrary to policy Q4.
• The site is within the buffer zone (a ‘cordon sanitaire’) identified under Adopted Local Plan policy Q9 – Development Near Sewage Works, which identifies a risk of smell and loss of amenity due to the proximity of Frome sewage treatment works. The development is therefore contrary to Adopted Local Plan policy Q9, unless Wessex Water can identify that no problem will arise.
• I am aware from local residents’ comments that there are serious issues in relation to the sewerage system downstream of the site at Spring Gardens, and these problems will need to be investigated.
• No archaeology surveys or a desk study have been carried out. The impact on archaeological heritage is unknown.
• Local residents have identified the site as being used by various species of wildlife, including most importantly Barn Owls, which are protected from disturbance under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. In line with the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, a Barn Owl survey must therefore be undertaken in an appropriate season to determine the presence of protected species on site and the impact of the development on protected species.  Mendip District Council has legal duties in relation to biodiversity and must therefore require such a survey for protected species to be undertaken. In the absence of any survey or mitigation proposals for Barn Owls, the development is contrary to Adopted Local Plan policies EN3 and EN4 on protected species and biodiversity, as it would result is a net loss of biodiversity and harm to protected species. Pre-application consultation by the applicants would have revealed the sightings by local residents.
• Substantial concerns have been raised by local residents in relation to the potential for increased flooding downhill at Spring Gardens. The Flood Risk Assessment does not assess this in detail. The proposed means of mitigating any increased flood risk, the construction of enormous tanks underneath the site, will need to be assessed carefully by the Environment Agency and the Council, as I understand this approach is not likely to be acceptable to the Environment Agency and will need to be reassessed. The development may therefore be contrary to Adopted Local Plan policy EN17 – Surface Water Runoff.
• Concerns need to be raised about the increase in traffic using Packsaddle Way and adjacent roads. The development would make Packsaddle Way an even larger cul-de-sac which is contrary to Somerset County Council’s previous Estate Roads Design Guidance (which states the size of ‘collector roads’ should be up to 200 houses).  In 1987, the inspector refusing the appeal stated that to further extend the already long Packsaddle Way estate road would not be acceptable. I would question whether Packsaddle Way, in its current condition and width, would be suitable to accommodate a substantial increase in traffic. Traffic will also increase noise and reduce air quality and pedestrian safety in Packsaddle Way.  Local children playing at Packsaddle playground, on the corner of Pedlars Grove would be exposed to added danger from additional traffic. The distance of the site to local facilities, and the steepness of the site, makes an increase in car travel most likely. The steepness of the site, and the fact that there is only one vehicle access, off Packsaddle Way, raises a large concern, as in winter weather this access is likely to become difficult or impossible to drive or walk uphill out of the site, which would result in residents of the new development becoming trapped. A road safety and pedestrian safety audit, including consideration of winter weather conditions should be carried out. As the site access is not likely to be satisfactory, the development would be contrary to Adopted Local Plan policy Q3 – Access.
• No areas of public open space or playground are proposed within the site, contrary to Adopted Local Plan policy SN7.
  Previous planning applications to develop this field for housing have all being refused and this application should be no different.
• No affordable housing is proposed, contrary to Adopted Local Plan policy SN2. The applicants’ Affordable Housing Statement attempts to justify this by pleading that there is ‘no value’ in the site and the developer would not make enough profit to provide it, but this reveals only that a smaller profit would arise, which does not justify this important policy requirement not being met to the detriment of the local community’s housing needs.
• There has been no pre-application consultation with the local community. Residents would have welcomed the chance to comment before a planning application was submitted.  A large number of residents have objected to the proposals. I am one of their representatives at Mendip District Council and aim to ensure that local residents views and knowledge is taken into account in the determination of the application.
• The planning application may require Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The developer did not request a Screening Opinion prior to submission.  An EIA Screening Opinion will need to be provided by the Council.

I would like to speak at any Planning Board meeting on this application.

Best regards,
Adam Boyden
Mendip District and Frome Town Councillor, Frome College ward”

 

   2 Comments