4/11/15
The application to build up to 80 dwellings was refused unanimously by the Planning Committee on 27th October. Will the developers submit a modified plan, or will they take the current application to appeal?
We don’t currently have the reasons for the refusal, but will add them when known.
20/10/15
The application will be put before the ESBC Planning Committee on 27th October 2015.
It appears the developers have not altered the access point off Ashbrook Lane, even though Highways has objected.
Bryn Walters will speak on behalf of the Parish Council, and Phil Ryan will also attend. One member of the public who has made a written representation about the application may speak for 3 minutes at the hearing. The person will be selected on a first-come-first-served basis. Based on previous experience, we would urge that person to resist the temptation to make too many points in his/her 3 minutes, to avoid the obvious (such as “this application is contrary to ESBC’s new Local Plan), and to use concrete objections relating to things like highways and drainage. Remember, too, that this is an outline planning application and as such exact numbers of units, and the design, appearance and materials of the units, is irrelevant.
28/7/15
A representative from ESBC has declared that Highways has objected to the Ashbrook Lane planning application for 80 homes on the grounds that access to the site is on a bad bend. ESBC has invited the developers to find a solution. It expects the application to be heard by the Planning Committee at its October sitting. Rumours are that a new access off Lichfield Road might be proposed.
However, the new Local Plan should be fully approved by the time the Planning Committee sit to consider the application – and the application should be refused because it is against Local Plan policy. Let’s hope the Planning Committee support their planning officers’ policies!
3/6/15
Points taken from meeting at the village hall, with ESBC Planning Dept, to discuss Ashbrook Lane application:
Jim Malkin and Naomi Perry represented ESBC Planning Dept.
Jim explained the planning application notice had been displayed in Ashbrook Lane on 3/6/15, and that there were 21 days for the public to post or email comments. Deadline, therefore, is 24th June 2015.
The council then has a maximum of 13 weeks (ie end of August) to make a decision. The Planning Committee meeting, in Jim’s opinion, would take place in August. At the committee meeting, two objectors will have 3 minutes each to present their case, as will two supporters of the application.
It is absolutely vital that objectors take the opportunity to express their concerns before 24th June – but make sure you are aware this is an application for Outline Planning Permission only (so please don’t comment on the design of the houses, or the number, but rather on the boundaries, the open spaces, “gifted land” and the effect on things like traffic problems. By the way, ESBC can condition the parameters such as hedgerows, the size of open spaces and “gifted land”, but they can’t – for an Outline Application – condition what is built. Of course, conditioning things like open spaces will have the effect of limiting the number of houses!). The planning representatives at the meeting made it absolutely clear they would do all they could to oppose the planning application because it was contrary to ESBC’s Local Plan. However, the Local Plan has only just come through the public hearing stage, and ESBC will not receive feedback from the government inspector until the end of next week. If the inspector’s findings are supportive, then the Local Plan will begin to carry weight – even though it won’t have been formally declared sound. If the inspector’s comments are critical then NPPF will continue to be the guiding principles for housing development (and ESBC’s planners will find it hard to refuse the application). Time-wise it’s going to be a close-run thing. Perhaps key to a supportive report by the inspector will be whether he accepts figures which attempt to show that a 5-year land supply has been identified in the borough. Although ESBC’s final figure is not a million miles from the one the inspector would find acceptable (average of 613 new homes per year for the next 15 years – 15 years being the nominal lifespan of a Local Plan), the problem is that in the first years the Local Plan states a low number of new houses to be built (because the huge developments at Burton and Uttoxeter can’t be completed in the first years), whilst stating higher numbers in the final years in order to achieve the 613 per year average. Developers are not happy with this, of course. It rests with the inspector’s judgement which, hopefully, will be in favour of the Local Plan’s figures.
Points were raised about the effect on school places, the surgery, and land drainage – but there probably won’t be any problems with these that can’t be overcome by the developers.
Highways-related issues will probably be the most forceful arguments against the proposed development – speed of traffic, volume of traffic, width of the carriageway, the provision of a walkway (pavement)……
Clause 106 was mentioned (see main page on this website for details). The planners confirmed that Clause 106 would be invoked and that they would liaise with our Parish Council about the details. Please contact the PC with your suggestions asap. Again, ideas can be found on this site’s main page.
When writing your objections to the application, either post them or use the online-response form found with the planning application on ESBC’s planning portal (see entry for 29/5/15 below). The planners suggested it might be more effective to bullet-point objections, and certainly each objection must be quantified rather than general. For example, it is no good writing “it will be dangerous for pedestrians”. It is better to write “it will be dangerous for pedestrians entering or leaving the development because the carriageway is only 3.6m wide, it will be difficult to provide a walkway, and an average of 6 HGVs use the road every hour”.
Many more points were raised at this well-attended meeting; sorry I can’t detail them all.
29/5/15
ESBC Planning Portal web address for the Ashbrook Lane planning application, which was submitted today:
29/5/15
|
9/5/15
ESBC’s Planning Department has decided an EIA will not be necessary. Use this link to read the letter written to the developer’s agents (Turley Associates):
This decision means there is now nothing standing in the way of a planning application for the land off Ashbrook Lane.
April 2015
ESBC wrote to the Parish Council on 21st April 2015 to advise that the developers had requested a Scoping Opinion and also a Screening Opinion.
A Scoping Opinion is requested when a developer considers an Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA) may be necessary. The council (ESBC) is required to provide advice on issues that should be addressed as part of the EIA document, and has 5 weeks to give an opinion.
A Screening Opinion seeks a decision from the council (ESBC) as to whether an EIA is required as part of the planning application. The council has 3 weeks to consider.
Although the Screening and Scoping requests are not open to public comment, nevertheless your views to Rob Duckworth (Planner, Development Control at ESBC) may well be useful. He can be contacted on 01283-508388 or emailed at rob.duckworth@eaststaffsbc.gov.uk.
Our Parish Council has written to Naomi Perry. Her email address is: Naomi.Perry@eaststaffsbc.gov.uk
Either Rob or Naomi will do!
It may not go down too well with the developers if ESBC decides a full Environmental Input Assessment is necessary (because it will delay the submission of a formal planning application until, perhaps, ESBC’s Local Plan has begun to carry weight), but the land in question is too environmentally important not to have a full EIA undertaken.
The following might help you to understand the sort of things an EIA might be concerned with:
(www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297123/geho0411btrg-e-e.pdf is the website for the full document, but a useful extract is reproduced below) Paras 3.8, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13 might be important issues for the proposed Ashbrook Lane development.
Potentially significant environmental issues
3.1The EIA Directive requires the EIA to ‘identify, describe and assess…the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors: human beings, fauna and flora; soil, water, air, climate and the landscape; material assets and the cultural heritage; [and] the interaction between the [above] factors.’ Socio-economic issues, health and safety in the workplace, material assets and the cultural heritage are all considered in EU Guidance on scoping (ERM, 2001b) but are not impacts categories for which the Environment Agency is the principal competent authority. Advice on these issues is presented in this guidance note without prejudice to the advice of the relevant competent authority, but the relevant competent authority should be consulted for each of these categories in all cases (further advice on the appropriate competent authority to contact is given in the Scoping Handbook).
3.2 The issues arising for all environmental receptors will change over time as the project matures and will vary from one site to another. Developers and site operators should, therefore, consider the impacts arising from the various phases of construction described above and expert advice on detailed technical issues should be obtained.
3.3 Environmental impacts can affect both humans and ecological resources. Potential impacts are discussed here in broad terms only, as their nature and intensity will depend on the physical characteristics of the project and the composition of any polluting materials. An EIA of proposed construction works should take these factors into account in assessing potential impacts on the environment.
3.4 The following paragraphs should be read in conjunction with Table A1. This details the activities involved in construction activities and the impacts arising from them.
Water environment
3.5 If construction takes place in the vicinity of a watercourse, bank destruction and instability may occur and the watercourse itself may suffer from increased sediment load and oil and fuel contamination from vehicles and access roads. The use of heavy machinery and vehicles during construction may result in the compaction of topsoil and, therefore, a change in surface water drainage patterns. Watercourses may be affected by any engineering works that are Scoping guidance on the Version 01/08/01 Construction works environmental impact assessment of projects GEHO0411BTRG-E-E 4 required for features on site such as diverting watercourses. The removal of vegetation and topsoil during site preparation will lead to increased erosion which may, in turn, cause increased sediment loads in nearby rivers and streams. Furthermore, changes in flow patterns and volumes which are a result of site works can have a significant adverse impact after development.
3.6 Where a brownfield site is being developed there is a risk of contaminated materials being brought to the surface or mobilised. Such materials constitute a risk to surface water quality and may also have implications for groundwater quality. Groundwater may also be affected if it is necessary to lower water tables for constructional activities. Depression of the water table may cause contaminated, or in coastal locations, saline groundwater to ingress.
3.7 Leakages from garages and parking areas for vehicles and from materials stores may cause pollution of local watercourses from leaks and spills of fuel and oil. In addition, sewage effluent from the workforce may also contaminate nearby rivers and streams.
Land
3.8 Construction will require some land-take and much of the site is likely to be subject to intense use during construction activities. Temporary construction facilities such as storage areas, canteens, parking areas and offices, may cause considerable damage away from the main concentration of construction activity. Land may also be required off site for temporary workers’ accommodation, which may affect agricultural land, natural habitat or sites of environmental or archaeological interest. The use of machinery and vehicles during construction may cause short and medium-term adverse impacts on landscape character. This could take the form of loss of natural features or features of visual interest, or loss or change in vegetative cover. Construction itself may introduce artificial structures into what may be a very natural landscape. The magnitude of such a visual impact will depend on the management of the site as well as the siting, purpose and design of the components of the project. Works undertaken in a manner sympathetic to the surrounding area are likely to reduce impact on the landscape character.
3.9 The use of construction vehicles and machinery may cause compaction of soils and a change in soil structure. Soils may become exposed during construction, leading to increased erosion. Construction may also involve the removal or mixing of soils on site which may have an impact on soil characteristics. During construction and maintenance, soils may become contaminated from spills or leaks of fuel and oil. On completion of the project it may be necessary to import soils for landscaping purpose, which may lead to the introduction of invasive species present in the soil. Alternatively, soil stored on site may be used for landscaping although stored soils will lose some of their fertility and structure during prolonged storage.
3.10 Compaction will influence the infiltration capacity of the soil, which may reduce water movement and vegetation cover. Reduced rainwater interception and surface protection due to the loss of vegetation cover may increase surface erosion. Rills and gullies may develop due to the removal of vegetation which acts to stabilise soil. Tracks perpendicular to contours may channel run-off and increase erosion.
Air and Climatic Factors
3.11 During site preparation and construction works, local air quality may decline somewhat as a result of dust created by such activities. In addition, dust will be generated by vehicles moving on exposed surfaces during dry weather. Dust generation and impact is dependent on site specific factors including meteorological conditions. Redeveloping brownfield sites on contaminated land may disturb surface matter with significant dust plumes in dry conditions. Subsequent deposition may affect sensitive species and habitats. Scopi envi GEHO0411BTRG-E-E 5 3.17 It is recommended that the table is annotated and used during consultations with other interested parties. Reference should be made to the prompt lists detailing impacts and sources of impacts in the Scoping Handbook. ng guidance on the Version 01/08/01 Construction works environmental impact assessment of projects
Ecology
3.12 Infrastructure associated with the development site may involve direct land take resulting in disturbance or destruction of terrestrial and aquatic environments with associated habitat loss. Sensitive species may be displaced leading to a change in the composition of the community. This may occur throughout the site preparation and construction phases. Subsequent landscaping of the completed site may also have ecological impacts, if inappropriate nonnative species are used. This is likely to be less of a problem for developments situated in urban locations compared to development in rural areas.
3.13 The removal of vegetative cover may result in the loss of feeding and breeding habitats. Some species may be displaced and may migrate to unfamiliar or less suitable territory. Noise generated by site preparation and construction activities may also cause sensitive species to be displaced. Impact studies should consider that wildlife populations in areas of low ambient noise might be adversely affected by increases in ambient noise levels.
Human environment
3.14 Construction of new developments may cause temporary disturbance and disruption to local residents, farmers, tourists, businesses and users of the area. This may be due to noise or dust emanating from a development site, or by closure of roads or footpaths while construction work is undertaken. Sites of archaeological or historical interest may be adversely affected by construction. In addition, the presence of a large temporary team of construction workers from outside the area may cause considerable social tension, especially, if the lifestyle of the construction workers differs markedly from that of the local people. These tensions are likely to be particularly significant in sparsely populated areas. Their presence will also put additional pressures on formal and informal social services.
3.15 The construction period on some sites is characterised by the transport of major items of plant to the development site. Exceptional items of plant, described as abnormal indivisible load (AILs) require special transporters. These slow moving vehicles can cause congestion and the disruption of existing traffic patterns. Without careful appraisal these wide, heavy loads may damage bridges and roadside features.
Any opinions you wish to pass to Mr Duckworth (rob.duckworth@eaststaffsbc.gov.uk) or to Naomi Perry (Naomi.Perry@eaststaffsbc.gov.uk) must be done asap, and certainly before the end of April.
April 2015
Planning Application number is P/2015/00565 – click here for the details
abbotsbromleydevelopmentadvice 