June 2019

Minutes of a meeting of the Environment committee held on 17th June 2019 in the Bracebridge Heath Community Library at 19:00

Present: Cllrs Adeyemi, Barr, Callan, Kilcoyne, Manders, Marden, Moran, Parr, Trought, Walker
In attendance: Mrs S Knowles – Clerk to Council 
One member of public was present

1. To consider apologies for absence and note the reason where appropriate – Cllr Marden gave apologies and reported that she would need to leave the meeting early.

Cllr Moran was present at the meeting but did not participate in discussions.

Cllr Adeyemi arrived at 19:01.

2. To receive members’ declarations of disclosable pecuniary, non-disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests in relation to any agenda item. –
Cllr Callan: Non-disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in matters relating to 19/0708/LBC - Crondall House; 19/0819/TPO – 26 Norfolk Crescent;  19/0804/TPO – 28 Norfolk Crescent
Cllr Marden: Non-disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in matters relating to 19/0708/LBC - Crondall House

3. To consider planning applications -

• 19/0708/LBC - Crondall House, 3 Caistor Drive – Council considered the application but has no comments or objections.
• 19/0819/TPO - 26 Norfolk Crescent - It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: That Council object to the application. In view of the evidence presented, council cannot see a legitimate reason for removal of what appears to be a healthy tree. Council also has concerns that if the application is approved that a precedent will be set enabling the removal of other trees subject to a preservation order.
• 19/0804/TPO – 28 Norfolk Crescent - It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: That Council object to the application. In view of the evidence presented, council cannot see a legitimate reason for removal of what appears to be a healthy tree. Council also has concerns that if the application is approved that a precedent will be set enabling the removal of other trees subject to a preservation order.
• 19/0018/RESM – Land Off Canwick Avenue and Westminster Drive Bracebridge Heath Lincoln Lincolnshire – It was proposed seconded and Resolved: That council object to and make the following comments on the application:

Affordable housing
CLLP Policy 20
Council were pleased to see that the affordable housing is not isolated within one area of the site and that there are two car parking spaces within the curtilage of each property.

Council notes and objects to the use of different fence materials for affordable homes on the site. This contradicts the CLLP and NPPF and contravenes the integration of affordable homes on the development. Council request that the same post and fence screening is used for all properties.

Council object to the mixture of housing and in particular that there are no single storey properties on the site suitable for the elderly or disabled.

Housing design
CLLP: vision statement
NPPF: 110c

Council object to the proposed housing designs as they do not reflect the character of existing buildings within BBH. To blend with
developments in the vicinity the housing should include

• feature walls of alternative coloured brick, stone or render;
• brick detail of another colour around window lintels, the whole house at window levels, at the eaves, or base of walls.
• stone quoins;
• different roof lines rather than just straight;
• roofs over bow windows and doors rather than flat roofs and in a variety of styles.

Paragraph 130 of the NPPF states that ‘Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents.’

Council also object to the housing mix on the development. Existing developments within Bracebridge Heath include a number of single storey buildings.

Layout – parking
CLLP: Policy LP13q
NFFP: 105

Council were pleased to see that suitable parking arrangements have been made within the curtilage of properties.

Council object to the layout of the site and the lack of provision of visitor parking. This will lead to excessive on street parking or parking on pavements. It is suggested that laybys be incorporated into the site to avoid this.

Housing – new technologies
CLLP: Policies LP13, LP18
NPPF: 105e, 110e, 150, 151

Council object to the lack of provision of climate change technology within the house designs. Council consider that some of the following technologies should be incorporated into the development:

• charging points for electric vehicles or low emission vehicles;
• solar or water heating panels;
• provision for the safe storage of cycles sufficient for the number of occupiers for that size of house.

Paragraph 110e of the NPPF states that developments should ‘be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission
vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations’.

Landscaping – green areas and open spaces
CLLP: Policies LP26, LP30
NPPF: 127

The green area at the south western edge of the site should include low posts or rails to prevent parking on the green space.

Council have concerns about and object to the plans for the ongoing management of the boundary fencing, green areas and hedging. A period of seven years has been outlined in the application but there are no plans for management beyond this. A number of aspects about the management are unanswered including:

• What happens after the initial seven-year period? 
• Who will retain ownership of the land during these 7 years and afterwards?
• Who will ensure that standards of management are maintained at the site?
• Who is the contracted management company accountable to?
• Who will be responsible for buying and installing litter and dog waste bins and all other street furniture?

Council object to the lack of plant or other visual screening for the bin storage areas.

Council are concerned that:

• there are a lot of small flowering type trees such as malus crab apples and flowering cherries. Council would like to see more longer life trees included in the development such as oak trees.
• the hedging around the green areas prevents free access to the spaces and will lead to a high concentration of footfall in certain areas and not spread out around site.

Children’s play area
Council object to the lack of management plans for the play areas and have questions regarding the upkeep and maintenance of the equipment:

• Who will carry out the regular and annual inspections of the play equipment?
• Who is responsible for repairs?
• Who will provide insurance for the play equipment and who will provide public liability insurance for use of the grounds?

Council object to the use of hedging around the play area. Full screening of a play area is not recommended on the grounds of safeguarding. Bow top fencing would be a more appropriate material.

Mitigation statement and landscape maps
CLLP: Policy LP21
NPPF: 174,175d

Council objects to the removal of the old hedgerows running east to west of the development. The replacement hedgerows included in the application are patchy and not long linear lengths. This does not replace the habitats lost and encourage biodiversity. 

Council objects to the lack of provision of nest boxes and bat boxes. There is not enough included to encourage biodiversity. The trees or shrubs suggested for inclusion will be too small to support much wildlife.

Council are also concerned that:

• there is a lack of suitable hedging or shrubs along eastern boundaries for small mammals, birds and invertebrates to hide/nest in;
• fencing between properties will not enable hedgehogs to move from garden to garden;
• there is no identified protection to ensure that the hedge on the eastern edge of the development to prevent uprooting by owners of the land or excessive cutting;
• no standards for installation of streetlighting have been identified. Will the streetlighting follow the guidelines set out in the Institute for Lighting guidance notes?

Soakaways & sewerage
CLLP: Policy LP14
NPPF: 165

Council still have concerns about the speed of drainage over some areas of the site. Council object to the installation of shared soakaways for 2 or more properties. The responsibility for shared soakaways needs to be clearly defined as this will lead to ongoing maintenance issues. Will the soakaways be positioned at a suitable distance from trees to ensure that the roots don’t cause failures?

Council note and object to the lack of detail given for sewerage in the application.

Highways – including Road surfaces un-adopted roads, paths, cycle-ways, street lighting
CLLP: Policy LP13
NPPF: 108, 109, 180

Council object to the:

• lack of means to prevent car parking on open, green spaces and children’s play areas;
• layout of the cycleway as it ends abruptly at the south eastern corner. Ideally a connection to the roadway would be constructed so there is a circular route.;
• overall length of the un-adopted highway to the south of the planned area between plots 85 to 89 and 86 and 87;  lack of detail related to the proposed street lighting.

Council also object to the inclusion of a footpath to the recreation ground. As lessees of the site, Bracebridge Heath Parish Council has not given permission for this to be constructed.

Council still has serious concerns about the single access entrance to the site being through Westminster Drive and the impact on the road network at peak times.

Cllr Marden left the meeting at 19:28

Cllr Manders declared a non-pecuniary interest in matters relating to St John’s Primary Academy at 20:00.

• 19/0796/EIASCO – Sleaford Road – It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: That the following objections and comments are made:

Council are concerned that the identified uses of the land alongside the minimum allocation for playing fields and green spaces will require a very high density of housing. 

The proposal includes the following identified uses for the land:
Total site size: 44.4ha
Dwellings: 1200 properties
School: 1.8ha
Employment: 2.6ha

A total of 1200 properties assumes a minimum population of 2400. This roughly requires a minimum of 2.64ha for playing fields and 4.32ha for local green space. This leaves 33.04ha for housing and means that the minimum density required to fit 1200 houses into the area will be 36.3 houses per ha.

Council note that there is a difference in the sizes and capacity of the sites on the application than those quoted in Appendix E HELAA Assessment Data Sheets within the CLLP.

Housing

Council object to the following:

• The density of the residential developments. The density outlined in this application is higher than any other development in the village.
• That more housing is included on the site that originally planned in the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan. 
• The inclusion of three storey houses. The consultations carried out for the emerging Neighbourhood Plan show that parishioners are strongly opposed to three storey buildings. These types of buildings do not fit with the character and building design of the village. consultations carried out.
• Similarly, council object to the inclusion of 4 storey residential institutions. Three or four storeys are not considered low rise in this village. In addition, the rise of these buildings could compromise the setting of the 3 listed buildings in the vicinity.

School
Council object to the size of the area outlined for the primary school. A minimum of 2ha is required to include space for staff parking and parking/dropping off for parents. The residential allocation in the development will not produce enough children to fill a two-form entry to the school. Access arrangements for children from other developments will need to be considered more closely include road and pedestrian access.

Council consider that the access arrangements are insufficient:

• There is no bus service to or passing this site. The nearest bus stop serves the number 1 bus.
• The number of houses will only provide enough pupils for a one-form entry school. Other pupils would have to come from outside this area requiring better access.
• The proximity of the school to the bypass will have an impact on pupils’ health. It is suggested that the school is situated further away from the bypass to reduce the impact on health from air and noise pollution.

Employment
There are few details provided on the type of business and employment within the development area. The employment and businesses in this area need to be in addition to and subservient to the existing provision within the centre of Bracebridge Heath. This will help to retain Bracebridge Heath as a village with its own centre. Council would like to see the inclusion of leisure facilities on the site.

Highways
Council object to the site access to the development. The inclusion of just one entrance to the land will create issues of traffic and highway safety.
In particular, this access will need to be shared by residents of the development, school children and school staff and any retail or industrial traffic.

A green wedge was intended to be created around the parish of Bracebridge Heath. This would help to retain a village feel and avoid amalgamation of settlements. Constructing a road through this would defeat the object of this and render the green space intended to give easy access to green and recreational space useless.

Open Space 
Council object to the lack of open space. The application does not detail the amount of space outlined for the area. The minimum amount of green space required is around 2.64ha for playing fields and 4.32ha for local green space. Provision for this open space should be considered in addition to the green buffer zone and not part of it. This is to create playing fields and open space with sports facilities and associated buildings and parking. Allocating all of the green space to one area of the development will increase the visual effect of crowding.

Infrastructure
Council are concerned that the existing infrastructure of the village will not cope with further developments and request further information on the provision of or contribution to NHS services and other infrastructure including but not limited to primary care and dentists. 
The application incorrectly states that there is a dental practice in the village.

Transport
A lot of the information relating to existing public transport is incorrect and does not adequately describe the current provision.

• All bus services finish around 6pm each day.
• Pedestrian access to the site will require residents to cross the A15, Sleaford Road. There are currently no crossings at the southern end of Sleaford Road.
• The application assumes a very fast walking pace. Walking at the average 3.1mph will take closer to 5 minutes to reach the nearest bus stop. There is no faster alternative route using the existing pedestrian routes available.
• The bus service provision mentioned is incorrect. Services 33A and 44A run once a month only. Services 573 and N70S are school buses. The only regular service is the number 1. Council is unsure where Wellington is.
• The application states that there are a number of bridleways that provide convenient off-road cycling options. Council is not aware of any cycle ways or suitable bridleways connecting to this site.
• Many issues affecting transport and highways has not yet been assessed.

Built Heritage

• Consideration needs to be given to the built heritage in the area including the former RAF Bracebridge Heath site which was on the land behind Sleaford Industrial estate and prior to that was Robey’s airfield 
• Council stress the sensitivity and importance of the Grade II listed buildings adjacent to the site.
• Council request that consideration is given to the accuracy of historical facts. Ermine Street is not Sleaford Road.

Other comments and considerations

• The area of land between Bloxholm lane and A15 was not in the South East Quadrant or designated to be built on in the CLLP. This area was meant to be a green space which would help separate Bracebridge Heath from the bypass and help create a green barrier around the village. 
• The noise and vibration of aircraft from RAF Waddington should be taken into account. Particularly as the engine testing areas are at the northern end of the RAF site.
• Developers may wish to check the existence of any pipelines running along edge of site to the west of Sleaford Road leading to RAF Waddington.
• The open cast quarry between the cemetery and recreation ground in Bracebridge Heath is locally known as ‘the hump’. It should be noted that this is filled with contaminants and should not be dug.
• Consultation with both education and health care providers and commissioners should take place.

There being no further business the chairman closed the meeting at 20:36.
Signed_______________________________Chairman 15th July 2019