September 2019

Minutes of a meeting of the Environment committee held on 16th September 2019 in the Bracebridge Heath Community Library at 20:00

Present: Cllrs Kilcoyne, Manders, Moran, Smith, Trought.
In attendance: Mrs R Fraser – Assistant Clerk to Council

1. To consider apologies for absence and note the reason where appropriate – It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: That apologies be accepted from Cllr Walker.

2. To receive members’ declarations of disclosable pecuniary, non-disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests in relation to any agenda item. - Cllr Manders declared a non-pecuniary interest in planning application 19 1107 HOUS, 29 Mount Road.

3. To consider protection of green spaces with Fields in Trust. It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: That committee session be suspended to enable a representative from Fields in Trust to give a presentation to the committee.

Committee session was suspended at 20:05

Jamie Leeson gave a presentation to members outlining the role of Fields in Trust and how they can work with the Parish Council to protect green spaces for future generations.

Committee session resumed at 20:33

4. To confirm the minutes of the Environment committee held on 15th July 2019 - It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 15th July 2019 be approved and signed as a true record by the chairman.

5. To confirm the minutes of the Environment committee held on 19th August 2019 It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 19th August 2019 be approved and signed as a true record by the chairman.

6. To consider planning applications –

• 19 1193 TPO 30 Salisbury Drive – It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: That Council supports the findings of the tree officer. Any work undertaken must be carried out by a qualified tree surgeon.
• 19 11 88 HOUS 37 London Road - Council considered the application and has no comment to make.
• 19 1161 HOUS 14 Worcester Close - Council considered the application and has no comment to make.
• 19 1107 HOUS 29 Mount Road – Council considered the application and has no comment to make.
• 19 0955 HOUS 2 Medland Drive - It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: That Council considers the application as over development within the area. Should the planning authority be minded to grant retrospective planning permission, Council requests that a condition is applied so the buildings are classed as temporary structures and they cannot be used for living accommodation.
• 17 1287 VARCON - Council has considered the application and notes no time scale has been given. Council requests that the temporary road signs used within Bracebridge Heath are removed and replaced with permanent signage.
• 19 0018 RESM - Cllr Moran abstained from commenting and voting on this application. It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: That Bracebridge Heath Parish Council object to this planning application. Previous objections still stand and further objections are added below.

Council are surprised that planners have allowed this application to come to council for comments considering the amount of errors in the documentation.

The travel document needs to be thrown out and done properly before it comes to committee or we are accepting the errors as being true representation of facts?

Errors

All the errors may not have been found.

1. Planning layout maps show the Aslin as 3 bedroomed and The Fletcher as 4 bedroom but the plans of the actual houses show The Aslin as 4 bedroomed and The Fletcher as 5 bedroomed. Which is it?

Travel Plan errors

This is a very poor document with many errors. All the timings and distances are taken from Google maps and bear no resemblance to reality. 
There is also misinformation in this document.
Distances and timings are measured to the entrance to the proposed estate (Westminster Drive).
The south eastern properties are at least another half a kilometre further away from this entrance.

2. Education: (page 13)

• Timings for walking to school completely inaccurate especially for young children. In fact from southern part of the estate to walk to and from school will take approximately 2 hours out of the families’ day.
• Parts of the site are very close to being outside of the ‘preferred maximum distance’ a primary child should walk to school.
• Cycling to school with young children not an option especially as there isn’t a cycleway. The footpath next to Canwick Avenue road is very narrow (approximately seven feet wide.) This road is an extremely busy road for cars and lorries. 
• Table 3.3 Sincil Sports College and Athena School are in fact the same school, there has just been a change of name. How is one 3.2km away and the other 3km?

3. Page 13 All walking and cycling times do not take into account the topography of the area. Cross O’ Cliff Hill has a rise of 230ft and Canwick Hill 200ft.

4. Walking is not feasible for some of the journeys as there are no footpaths.

5. Cycling is not feasible due to the lack of cycle-ways, density of traffic and the hills.

6. Page 13 A journey to Boston takes longer than 17 minutes by bike and the Interconnect 1 bus services does not go there. (neither are the bike timings correct if Boston becomes Grantham)

7. Page 23 5.9 Assuming full occupation there will be 1320 dwellings. Should this be 120?

8. Page 12 Table 3.2 The A6 Boston Coningsby Horncastle bus does not go through Bracebridge Heath.

9. Page 11 3.12 Many errors in this section

• Interconnect bus 1 does not always go as far as Grantham, Last bus from Lincoln to Bracebridge Heath is 18:20. The last bus from Bracebridge Heath to Lincoln is 2049. Neither are suitable for a working person to get home or a person to go out to Lincoln in the evening.
• M2 Lincoln to Anwick (Padleys Factory) only runs into Lincoln at 0242, 1650, 0052 It only stops at Main Avenue which is several hundred metres extra walk. Therefore, not suitable to be included in this travel document. From Lincoln to Bracebridge Heath runs at 0235, 1435, and 1645. Less service on a weekend.
• M1 Lincoln to Anwick (Moy Park) only runs into Lincoln at 1835. It only stops at Main Avenue which is several hundred metres extra walk. Therefore, not suitable to be included in this travel document. From Lincoln to Bracebridge Heath runs at 0507 .Less service on a weekend.
• A6 This is the ASDA shopping bus which runs once a week on a Wednesday leaving Bracebridge Heath at 1255 arriving ASDA 1325 and returning from Asda at 1440 arriving Bracebridge Heath 1507. Carrying shopping from the bus stop to the development over 1km is not feasible for many people.

Therefore, statements made in the travel document are very misleading/false as there is no indication of timings of services.

10. Page 2 1.7 A pedestrian access will not be created to south of development linking site to recreation ground as Bracebridge Heath Parish Council has not granted permission.

11. Page 9 3.6 Villages are not accessible by cycle due to heavy vehicle use of roads including large lorries. There are no cycle-ways in Bracebridge Heath. There is a substandard narrow footpath/cycle way in Waddington Parish which runs to the parish boundary with Bracebridge Heath. However, it is not wide enough for two cyclists to pass each other or a cyclist and pedestrian No other cycle-ways connect to  Bracebridge Heath.

12. Page 10 3.7 Due to the topography (hills) Lincoln train station is more than 15 minutes cycle away. The return journey will be over 30 minutes as the vast majority of cyclists walk up the hill.

13. All journeys either by walking or cycling from Lincoln to the development have been underestimated due to the topography.

14. Page 10 3.8 2nd of route cycleway does not exist. Council assumes that is meant to be the Viking Way which is for walkers not cycles. Not suitable for Cycles.

15. Page 3.12 Bus stops for most of site definitely more than 13 minutes away. Average speed will be much less if carrying shopping or an older person. South-east of site is approximately an extra 500m by proposed road. You would spend more time walking to bus stop than on the bus (except at peak times when traffic on Cross O’Cliff hill can be backed up to the A15 /A607 junction).

There is a general assumption that it is possible to cycle to various places which is not the case. Therefore, if there is a S106 charge of £100K towards improving cycle-ways (4.26). Bracebridge Heath does not have any cycle-ways, this should be to provide cycle-ways within the village or into and out of the village. This money needs to be released before development of the first house is complete to allow cycle-ways /cycle lanes to be built for residents to use. Council requests this made a planning condition for this site.

16. 4.27 states Cycle parking by way of garages were applicable. Very few garages and none re affordable houses. Therefore, where is secure storage for cycles in the rest of development?

 17. 4.34 Properties will be cable enabled for electric charging point but the charging points will not be installed. What does this mean? This fails to adhere to NPPF 110

18. 5.8 assumes at peak times 120 houses which are mainly 4 bedroomed will only generate 90/ 80 vehicles this is too low considering the distance to any facilities. (Approx. 30+ minutes to nearest facilities)

Page 15/16 Travel Plan co-ordinator: It states they will be shared other sites, so where will they be based and how will they be contactable. Just providing leaflets and a website will not be enough to make a change.
Yearly monitoring report – what happens if find the travel plan is not working and very few walking/cycling? What will Linden do about this?

In essence the location of this site and its layout does not meet national and local policy objectives for travelling. Despite Lindens attempt to make it fit. No discussions or advice was sought from Bracebridge Heath Parish Council regarding Travel Plans

Layout - bins

• Missing refuse bin collection point for houses 56-59, 117-120, 86-90
• Council object to the lack of plants or other visual screening for the bin storage areas.

Layout - changes
Council has noted that

• 2 single storey dwellings have been added to the design as requested but only a token number of 2
• However, it is also noted that there are now 7 two and half storey (3 floors) buildings which were not there before. (4 – four Bed, and 3 – five bed properties).
• The number of three bedroomed properties has decreased by 5 properties to be replaced mainly by larger properties.

Council object to this late inclusion of two and half storey buildings and five bed properties which will increase the traffic flow from the estate. Also objects to the decrease in the number of three bedroomed properties.

Council also notes:

• that there is an increase in terraced properties from 3 to 5 blocks and the lack of affordable houses to the east side and southern side of the development.
• that the play area has been moved away from the majority of the affordable houses (where young children may reside) to the southern green area. Why?

Council is pleased that the children’s play area hedge has been removed.

Layout – parking
CLLP: Policy LP13q
NFFP: 105
Council object to 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 design
CLLP: vision statement
NPPF: 110c
Council object to the proposed housing designs visual appearance and finishing materials as they do not reflect the character of existing buildings within Bracebridge Heath.

These designs are no more than plain utilitarian red or yellow boxes. The flat roofed bow windows appear cheap along with the almost nonexistent plain flat porch roofs. The dormer windows in the Fletcher and Aslin houses have no style and look as if they have been perched there.

To blend in 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;
• greater variety of roof lines not all the same.;
• roofs over bow windows and doors rather than flat roofs, 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.’

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:

The fact that the buildings are being built with better insulation/thermal control is insufficient mitigation for these climate policies. They are only
what any good builder would do to sell their properties.

Further climate change technology is needed.

• charging points for electric vehicles or low emission vehicles be installed. It is noted that the Energy and sustainability Strategy document page 11 5.10 states that electrical infrastructure will be supplied across site etc. and that blanking plates fitted to gable end walls. Not all properties have their parking spaces next to their gable ends. What is planned for those properties?

Council requests that paragraph 5.10 is made a condition of this planning application and that power points are suitably provided for all properties even those whose garages/parking places are not near their gable end (front of house or end of garden etc).

• solar or water heating panels
• provision for the safe storage of cycles sufficient for the number of occupiers for that size of house. To state that there is adequate storage within garages is not sufficient when nearly half of houses do not have garages, including all of the affordable (rented and shared ownership) and 2/3 bedroomed freehold properties.

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
To prevent parking on the green spaces there should be low posts or rails around the areas where hedges are not present.

Council still has serious concerns about and object to the plans for the ongoing management of the boundary fencing, green areas and hedging etc. 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 company are still unanswered concerning the management of these green spaces and other areas that may be included in the management scheme.

• 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?

Mitigation statement and landscape maps
CLLP: Policy LP21
NPPF: 174,175d
Our objections still stand from our previous comments.

Highways – including Road surfaces un-adopted roads, paths, cycle-ways, street lighting
CLLP: Policy LP13
NPPF: 108, 109, 180
Council still objects to the following:

• Lack of means to prevent car parking on open, green spaces and children’s play areas.
• The overall length of the un-adopted highway to the south of the planned area between plots 85 to 89 and 86 and 87.
• The lack of detail related to the proposed street lighting.
• The creation of footpath leading into the recreation ground. As lessees of the recreation ground, Council has not given permission for a pedestrian access point into the development.

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

7. To receive a report on planning decisions received – A written report was received and accepted by members.

8. To consider highways and roads: Cllr Moran requested that a committee meeting with LCC Highways is arranged. It was reported that Highways no longer routinely meet with Parish Councils.

9. To consider street lighting – Nil

10. To consider street furniture - It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: The assistant clerk would obtain a quote for litter bin stickers and a quote for a new bin to be located at the exit of the cricket ground.

11. To consider bus shelters –
a. To consider quotations for a condition survey on bus shelters - It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: To instruct BESA Environmental Ltd to carry out condition surveys of all village bus shelters as per their quote.

12. To consider woodland walk and burial ground –
a. To consider replacement trees in the woodland walk- It was proposed, seconded and Resolved: To instruct B&B Tree Specialists to proceed with the tree replacement as per their quote. Recommend to Full Council that funds are moved from reserves.

It was agreed that the committee recommends and an adjustment of earmarked reserves for the woodland area.

13. To consider the NALC Tree Charter- This item was deferred until the next meeting of the committee.

14. To receive and note documentation from Bracebridge Heath Neighbourhood Plan subcommittee - A verbal report was given and accepted by members.

15. Items for the agenda of the next committee meeting –NALC Tree Charter, Fields in Trust.

There being no further business the chairman closed the meeting at 22:05
Signed_______________________________Chairman 18th November 2019