In November, Mendip District Council’s initiative to build social and affordable housing on land under its ownership progressed at three sites in Street and Glastonbury (see here). However, Mendip’s Cabinet agreed to ‘pause’ the sale of the site at Easthill, Frome, due to ecological concerns, and the pause was clarified in December here. This is after I and other Frome and Lib Dem councillors raised concerns and called in the sale of Easthill into Scrutiny Board, which unanimously agreed to ask Cabinet to reconsider its inclusion, and Cabinet agreed to reconsider and then to pause consideration of the site (as explained here). Easthill was also discussed at Frome Town Council meetings (see here) and December’s Full Council.

The pause is ‘likely to be months rather than weeks, will enable the Council to identify and gather additional information, allow time for the commissioning of any reports, and the collation and publication of said reports.’ The decision will also not be taken behind closed doors. It is good to see the Scrutiny process working. Alternative approaches and sites for social housing are also being looked at.

Links to the Cabinet agenda, report, updating paper and livestream video of the Cabinet meeting are here. The article here explains how we got here. The meeting heard from 11 members of the public, the planning officer from Frome Town Council and the CEO of Bath YMCA, as well as many councillors. The Lib Dem Cabinet then voted unanimously to:

1. Confirm their approval of 2^nd November 2020 to proceed with the transfer of Cemetery Lane, Street, Cranhill Car Park, Street (part only) and Norbins Road Car Park, Glastonbury, to Aster Housing Group, subject to contract and planning consent, for the development of affordable and social housing.
2. To pause the proposed transfer of land adjoining Easthill Cemetery Frome to Aster to allow time for a review of issues raised by Members.

Now that a welcome pause has been agreed for Easthill, I hope we can use it to review the existing environmental and other reports, carry out necessary further ecological surveys, and reconsider the capacity and suitability of the site for development in light of the likely constraints on development, potential impacts and mitigation measures, in a more informed manner. It also provides an opportunity to review how other sites are assessed for their suitability to develop, as important environmental constraints were missed earlier in the process before we called the decision in.

Update after Full Council meeting 3rd December 2020:

At Mendip District Council’s Full Council meeting on Thursday 3rd December, two motions were tabled concerning the Affordable and Social Housing programme and the proposed development at Easthill (see here). After over 2 hours discussion on the need for a vote on the motions and other aspects of the social and affordable housing programme, with extensive advice from MDC legal officers who advised that the original wording of the Conservative motion would not be in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, it was eventually agreed for both motions to be withdrawn and that all parties would meet to discuss a joint cross party proposal on the subject. This is now on the agenda as item 10, ‘Proposed Framework for Engagement Regarding Asset Disposal or Development – Next Steps’ at the next Full Council meeting on Monday 14th December (which will be streamed live online, see here). Hopefully there will be agreement on how to move forward.

Petition:

An online petition has been launched by the Friends of Easthill to ‘turn the pause into a full stop’ – see here, and a discussion on the Next Door site here.

Response to Q&A document:

My submitted comments on the Q&A document found here are:

• The document does not acknowledge the potential pause to the promotion of the Easthill site, and reads as if it is going ahead as part of the programme whatever the Cabinet decision is. This could be confusing to residents.
• The statement that the project seeks to deliver on our climate and ecological commitment because it would relocate protected species will be contentious, because it potentially conflicts with aspects of our commitment including our recently adopted Somerset Climate Strategy, which includes the Natural Environment Objective 1 to ‘Protect the biodiversity, habitats, natural processes and carbon stores we already have by taking decisions that will stop biodiversity losses…’.
• The statement on page 5 under ‘November 2020’ repeats the misrepresentation of the call-in request in the 26/11 Cabinet Report, which refers to the precise location of the sites not being understood. This needs to be corrected to more accurately reflect the reasons for the call in, which was largely because information on the environmental features of the Easthill site and potential environmental constraints on its development were not made available to Cabinet, other councillors or members of the public which contravened the presumption of openness. Please can you make that correction. 
• The document states that the housing development site at Easthill has been subject to a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. It needs to be noted that the PEA report dated January 2020 recently released to members assessed the ecological impacts of an access road junction into the site, and does not assess the ecological value of the potential housing site or assess impacts of a housing development or recommend further surveys or mitigation measures for a housing development, which an appraisal of the site as stated would be expected to include. I have pointed this out to officers previously and will recirculate my review of the reports. Renowned local ecologist Eve Tigwell has identified a need for further surveys at the site to establish the habitat’s ecological value. 
• The document does not acknowledge the classification of the site as Woodpasture and Parkland ‘Priority Habitat’ by Natural England (habitats for the principal importance of conserving biodiversity identified by the Secretary of State at Defra under s41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006), or the presence on site of veteran trees (‘irreplaceable habitats’ in the NPPF) as identified on the Woodland Trust’s Ancient Tree Inventory. These omissions underplay the recognised ecological importance of the site. The potential for a development to incorporate mitigation measures for impacts on these wildlife habitats has also not been discussed.
• Additional reports have been commissioned and presumably received by the project team including on noise, landscape, heritage/archaeology, sustainable drainage, and planning policy, but have not been received by members despite several requests. The potential implications for any of these to identify constraints on a development have not been summarised to members so we still have no information on these issues.

Comments on Cabinet meeting 26 November 2020 Item 5 report

My comments on the report at item 5 are below:

Reason for call-in

This decision was called in to Scrutiny and referred back to Cabinet largely because information on the environmental features on the Easthill site and potential environmental constraints on its development were not made available to Cabinet, other members of the Council or the public, which contravened the presumption of openness in decision-making, combined with what is now known about the ecological and landscape value of the site.

But the Cabinet report’s Summary, 2nd paragraph, and Introduction, 2nd paragraph, state ‘A scrutiny call-in by members of the Council has identified the possibility that some members of the public may not have fully understood the precise location of these sites…’. This significantly misrepresents the call-in request, which I authored. I ask that this error is noted.

The full reason in the call-in request, which was considered valid by the Monitoring Officer (other reasons were given which were not) was, ‘… no information was included in the Cabinet paper that would allow the Cabinet, other members or the public to consider the site extent and boundary, any of the landscape features or other potential environmental constraints of the site that may be affected by the development in the manner envisaged in the Cabinet paper; or how the capacity of the site for development for 77 dwellings had taken account of site conditions and constraints. Two briefings were given to members on 27^th and 29^th October 2020, in which the site boundary was shown on screen, with one slide stating ‘Circa 75 homes, Adjoins cemetery/railway, Settlement Boundary, Local Plan DP2, No public access, Retention of protected trees/open space’. There was a brief discussion and the lead officer gave reassurance that protected trees and wildlife would be protected. We now understand that detailed reports have been prepared of various site surveys and assessments, including of habitats, bats and other wildlife, trees, landscape, noise, sustainable drainage, cemetery constraints, archaeology and heritage, and planning policy, which examined and mapped potential environmental and other constraints on development, but these were not made available or summarised in writing to Cabinet, other members or the public. In the absence of such information, Cabinet could not possibly be fully and properly informed on these matters before making its decision, and neither could other members or the public viewing the Cabinet paper, which contravenes the presumption of openness and good decision-making.’

Ecology

The Ecology section refers to the preliminary ecological appraisal, bat and reptile surveys and tree survey reports. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal report (January 2020) identified the habitat as semi-improved neutral grassland and a number of species of interest, but it did not assess the potential ecological impacts of a housing development of the Easthill site or the mitigation measures that would be needed, or the ecological value of the site or further surveys that would be needed to assess it. This is because its stated purpose was to assess the potential impacts of a small proposed access road junction into the site. It does very briefly refer to potential surveys for bats and some design principles should the site be proposed for development, but no other species or habitats are discussed in this way. This makes the report not yet fit for the purpose of forming part of the due diligence and comprehensive assessments to allow judgements on suitability to be made, robust viability appraisals to be undertaken, and site layouts for development to be prepared, as stated in reports to Cabinet in July and November 2020. The report needs to be updated and completed.

Renowned local ecologist Eve Tigwell, a former chair of Somerset Wildlife Trustees, has provided detailed comments on the reports, circulated on 25/11/20. She concludes that the surveys to date have not included the necessary range of plants and animals, have missed some important wildlife habitats, and that adequate detailed surveys should be undertaken to assess the site properly for plants, other mammals, birds, amphibians and invertebrates, with surveys for fungi and lichens also advisable, before the ecological value of the site can be determined. She advises that these need to be carried out over several months (at least March to July), and that ‘Without such surveys there is a severe risk that any changes to the site will destroy valuable habitat on which protected species rely’.  We therefore need a pause to allow these surveys to be undertaken and reported.

The report also did not identify the Rodden Nature Reserve (a Local Wildlife Site) to the south, the site’s ‘Priority Habitat’ classification, and veteran trees within the site.

Priority Habitats are identified by the Secretary of State at DEFRA under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 for the principal importance of conserving biodiversity in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, and are included in the Government’s MAGIC online map layers. Easthill is identified as a Wood Pasture and Parkland Priority Habitat site[1] (see map below), as are historic parks at nearby Orchardleigh and Longleat. Woodpasture habitat is briefly described by the National Biodiversity Network[2] as ‘an important habitat, positively teeming with life and vital to preserve. … It’s an understudied, historically overlooked part of our landscape, … At their core, both wood pasture and parkland consist of big old trees with full crowns growing in grazed pasture. They are what ecologists like to call a ‘mosaic habitat’ which means a particular mixture of other habitats within it; the value of which is greater than the sum of its parts.’ As a Priority Habitat, the site is more likely to qualify for designation as a Local (County) Wildlife Site (which Local Plan Policy DP5 applies to) under the Somerset Environmental Records Centre’s guidelines[3]. The Priority Habitat status of the site does not appear to have been considered by the project at all. Was this known to officers who assessed the site suitability?

Veteran trees have been identified on site on the Woodland Trust’s Ancient Tree Inventory[4]. The report of local tree expert Julian Hight report is informative. Veteran trees are referred to as ‘irreplaceable habitats’ in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), with paragraph 175 stating, ‘development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists’. The ecological and historic landscape value of these trees does not appear to have been taken into account. Was the presence of veteran trees known to officers who assessed site suitability?

Trees on site are all protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) made by Mendip District Council in the interests of amenity. As discussed in the call-in request, the information presented to members at an informal briefing the week before the 2^nd November Cabinet consisted of photographs of the tree-lined southern boundary of the site and a verbal reassurance that trees would be protected. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment report, received by members just before Scrutiny Board on 16^th November, identifies 5 trees that must be retained, 10 trees that it is highly desirable to retain in a development, and 20 individual trees and a group of 11 trees that are not deemed to be constraints to development. This indicates that a housing development may not retain all the protected trees after all. The Arboricultural report includes a plan showing the tree constraints with large Root Protection Areas throughout the site. How a development will respond to the tree constraints is not known. How will the development protect and respect the tree constraints?

The bat and reptile survey reports appear to have been carried out properly, but it is not clear whether a development could incorporate the bat compensation and reptile refuge areas recommended in these reports in order to mitigate the identified impacts, and the extent of land that would required within the site is not defined. It should also be noted the Government’s national advice on protected species is that a planning authority must be satisfied that if a protected species licence (e.g. for bats) is needed, it is ‘likely to be granted’ by Natural England or Defra before a local planning authority can give planning permission – section 4[5] explains.

Residents report that Barn Owls have been seen hunting over the site, and other councillors report Red Kite hunting. These indicate a good population of small mammals live in the rough or tussocky grassland habitat. Barn Owls receive special legal protection from disturbance at or near their nests under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, so a survey should be undertaken to assess whether they are roosting in the veteran trees, and the consequent ecological value of the site.

I understand that additional reports have been commissioned for Easthill and have presumably been received by the project team, on noise, landscape, heritage/archaeology, sustainable drainage, and planning policies. These reports or a summary of any implications have not been sent to members, despite several requests. When will these be made available to members to review?

The potential for a housing development to incorporate mitigation measures for impacts on important and irreplaceable wildlife habitats and species is currently unknown. A site layout for a development has been prepared, as Appendix A to Item 10 at Scrutiny Board on 16^th November 2020[6] states on page 15, ‘Good progress has been made in Q2 20/21 with due diligence being completed, along with site layouts for the five sites that form the first tranche of the programme’.  Members have not seen the site layout for Easthill or any ‘mitigation plans’ and therefore cannot confirm whether a development could respect any of the identified environmental constraints. When will these be made available to members to review?

It is not appropriate to leave the consideration of biodiversity in a project the Council will manage, until after a decision to transfer land the Council owns to enable a planning application for major development on it to be prepared. The Council has a legal duty to consider biodiversity in all council decisions, not just planning – under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. How has that legal duty been satisfied so far?

Consultation

Members of Scrutiny Board were also concerned that no public consultation on the concept of the proposals or the impacts and benefits of a development at Easthill had been undertaken before Cabinet’s decision to transfer the sites to facilitate a planning application. I hope that a pause will allow the Council to review the need for, and undertake, a suitable public consultation on the potential for development of Easthill, and any other sites it considers suitable to develop in the near future, to inform its decisions in future.

Consideration of Alternative Sites in Frome

This section does not refer to any other alternative potential means of providing or facilitating social and affordable housing to meet future demands. The CPRE’s recent report ‘State of Brownfield’[7] demonstrates that there is available and suitable land in the planning system to meet the government’s ambition to build 300,000 homes per year for the next 5 years. Previously developed sites must remain our first choice. We need to continue to investigate potential alternative approaches to increasing social housing provision in Frome and elsewhere, in any case, including on the Council’s project at Saxonvale.

Suitability for development

The report states ‘Alternative sites in Council ownership in Frome and elsewhere have been considered and independently assessed for development potential and viability. This has resulted in the land at Easthill being included in the first tranche of sites that are considered suitable for development’.

The Council’s Corporate Plan priorities commit the Council to ‘Be transparent and open in our decision making’ when delivering our commitments to deliver a fairer, greener and more vibrant Mendip. However, the Council’s process for defining the suitability of sites we own for housing development has not been open or transparent to date (including the previous administration). The independent assessment of development potential and viability that is referred to in the report, any constraints the project officers looked into and took into account and advised members on, and the level of detail they presented to members, be it full reports and maps or short bullet points, are kept confidential, are not available, have not been published and cannot be scrutinised. It is now clear that a number of potentially important constraints were either missed or dismissed. In contrast, sites put forward for allocation in the Local Plan as suitable for development, such as at Cemetery Lane in Street, have gone through several rounds of assessment and public consultation with a Sustainability Appraisal which asks and answers many questions in the public domain. Has any such appraisal has been undertaken for Easthill?

This issue has been raised at the Council’s Climate and Ecological Emergency Group meeting earlier this week. I would like a ‘pause’ to be used to undertake a review of the site suitability process so that it can be improved in an open and transparent manner that members and the public can have confidence in. Can I suggest that a Scrutiny Task and Finish Group or similar working group be formed to look into this?

Somerset Climate Strategy

The original call-in request identified several potential conflicts with the Council’s policy framework, including with its designation in the Council’s Adopted Local Plan Part 1 under Policy DP2 as an Open Area of Local Significance[8], Local Plan policies DP5, DP6 and DP8, the Frome Town Design Statement[9], the TPO, veteran trees and protected species, and the recently adopted Somerset Climate Strategy.

The Somerset Climate Strategy highlights the importance of trees and vegetation which absorb carbon dioxide when they grow, and release greenhouse gases if they are cut down. In the theme Natural Environment it identifies that Somerset’s landscapes are uniquely placed to sequester and store greenhouse gases naturally, including carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere, and reference is made to tree planting, and working in partnership with other organisations to deliver benefits for biodiversity. In particular, its Natural Environment Objective 1 is to ‘Protect the biodiversity, habitats, natural processes and carbon stores we already have by taking decisions that will stop biodiversity losses and destruction of natural processes protecting carbon sinks…’.  A major housing development at Easthill may be in conflict with this objective.

The need to Pause Easthill

With all the above in mind, I am asking for a pause for the development of Easthill so that issues raised by members and the public can be addressed. This would be a meaningful pause, so that existing information can be collated, members can review all relevant reports, further site ecological surveys can be undertaken and the site’s suitability for development can be reassessed with a fuller understanding of the ecological and landscape value of the site and the potential impacts of development. This would be to an appropriate level of detail before any planning application is prepared. A pause should also allow the process for identifying sites’ suitability for development to be reviewed and improved, and appropriate public consultations to be carried out, so that members and the public can have confidence in our Council’s decisions in future.

Adam Boyden, Mendip District Councillor, Frome College ward.

25/11/2020

---

[1] Source: https://magic.defra.gov.uk/ (Habitats and Species/Habitats/Woodland layer)

[2] https://nbn.org.uk/news/wood-pasture-and-parkland-network/

[3] http://www.somerc.com/local-wildlife-sites/

[4] https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/

[5] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-species-how-to-review-planning-applications#consult-natural-england-or-the-environmental-agency

[6] https://www.mendip.gov.uk/article/8760/Scrutiny-Board-Monday-16-November-2020

[7] https://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/state-of-brownfield-2020/

[8] ‘Permission will not be granted for development which would harm the contribution to distinctive local character made by Open Areas of Local Significance as identified on the Policies Map.’

[9] adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document by Mendip District Council in October 2015, which states in relation to Zone 12: Easthill that ‘Open space and landscape asset: The open space around the cemetery is a key asset to the area and links well with the River Frome corridor. This should be retained and the trees assessed in terms of formal protection and requirements for ongoing management.’

   Leave a comment