14/00394/OUTM (Outline Application Major)
Residential development comprising up to 180 dwellings (outline: means of access) at Lyalvale Ltd Fisherwick Road
Response due by 13 May 2014 (extended by agreement)
Key Observations:
· Once notified of this major application Whittington and Fisherwick Parish Council leafleted every household in the Parish inviting their views. Approximately 61responses were received - roughly a 6% response rate – compared with the 86 collected by the applicant during the two pre-application consultation events held in December and January.
· Of the replies received a small number show support but the majority express opposition, although some respondents felt that more detail was needed for them to come to an informed opinion. Please refer to Annex B, which includes all replies received, for further detail. Annex A contains an article from the May 2014 Parish Council newsletter which summarises the scope of the application and its supporting detail and outlines key concerns raised by the community.
· These concerns include:
-Site accessibility and location
-The ability of the existing road network to absorb increased traffic flows at peak times
-Increased congestion and parking problems in the centre of the village
-Additional pressure on the already overburdened doctors’ surgery and
-Potential accommodation problems at the school the increase in population would bring
· It is acknowledged that the applicant has in part addressed these issues in the planning submission by proposing to:
-Increase the width of the access road and include a continuous footpath down one side
-Upgrade the canal towpath to provide a pedestrian/cycle route to the village and
-Showing by computer modelling that key road junctions would stay “within capacity”
However observations on the ability of the school and the surgery to cope over time with the growth in numbers remain an aspiration that could only be validated by detailed discussion with the parties involved.
· Although there are broader issues of sustainability to address given the site’s relative isolation, which may to a degree offset by its “brownfield” status, the major issues are traffic related:
Widening the access road would be beneficial but doubts about the adequacy of its junction with Fisherwick Road close to the rail bridge remain. The road capacity studies, although using sophisticated survey/modelling techniques, do not appear to take account of Fisherwick Road’s confined width or the severely restricted nature of the bridges at Whittington and Elford. This is not merely a question of capacity but also of safety.
· Residents in this location would rely heavily on individual car journeys to access local services. Traffic congestion, particularly along Main Street and Church Street, but also outside the school at peak times, would undoubtedly worsen. The application does talk in general terms of establishing a traffic plan and possibly introducing a community transport scheme, but precedent shows that these – with the possible exception of school bus arrangements – seldom succeed over time.
· In framing a response the Parish Council must take into account the substantial issues referred to above and the clearly expressed views of residents. Whilst acknowledging the need to accommodate additional housing in our locality in the medium term and the care taken by the applicant over this submission, the Council has concluded, after full and careful consideration, that it is unable to endorse the current proposals for the site.
Annex A
Extract from May 2014 edition of Parish Council News letter
LYALVALE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
In mid April we leafleted every household in the Parish to advise residents that an Outline planning application had been submitted to Lichfield District Council by Lyalvale Express Ltd seeking to build houses on land currently occupied by disused storage bunkers adjacent to their manufacturing plant. We asked for your views and suggested you may also like to contact Lichfield planners direct.
The deadline for comment has now passed but every comment received has been included in the Parish Council response – which of course takes account of the views they express – to the Planning Authority. Nevertheless, as the application will be considered formally by the Planning Committee in June we thought it would be useful at this stage to summarise key aspects of the proposals and concerns raised by the community during consultation meetings held in December and January and mention the proposals to meet those concerns included in the application by the applicant.
Although this is an outline application, a substantial amount of detail has been submitted. The key Planning Statement document alone runs to some 60 pages and this is supported by site layout plans and a number of detailed survey documents. These include:
-Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
-Arboricultural Impact Assessment
-Ecological (i.e. wildlife) Assessment
-Transport Assessment
-Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment
-Utilities Assessment
-Heritage Assessment
-Ground Conditions
-Noise Assessment
Key Aspects of the Proposals
The roughly rectangular 9.8ha site is located approximately 1.4miles (2.25km) from Whittington on the Elford side of the West Coast Main Line immediately to the east of Lyalvale’s shot gun cartridge manufacturing plant which is currently being extended at a cost of £1.7m. The site itself contains redundant storage bunkers and related hardstandings and access roads. These were previously used to store explosives used in quarrying operations. All Lyalvale’s limited storage requirements are contained within the factory site perimeter. Although rural in character none of their holding is in the green belt. It is essentially a “brownfield” site.
Currently the proposals envisage building 180 dwellings over a 5 year period. House types would range from 1 bedroom apartments to 5 bedroom homes. Affordable homes – spread between 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units – would account for 54 (30%) of these. Types of tenure etc would be subject to detailed negotiation with Lichfield District Council. Of the remaining 126 “market” houses 81 would be 4/5 bedroomed with the balance distributed over all remaining house types.
Access would be from Fisherwick Road just east of the WCML overbridge at Hademore via the existing road serving Lyalvale’s manufacturing plant Detailed landscaping proposals would include substantial perimeter screen planting to lessen the impact on the surrounding landscape and buffer planting to separate housing from operational areas. Using Environment Agency data the site has been assessed as “having a less than 1 in a 1000 (<0.1%) annual probability of river flooding”. This is 10 times less than recently reported in another local publication. For all practical purposes it can therefore be regarded as falling outside the River Tame floodplain area. This assessment has also been independently confirmed to the Parish Council by a respected local resident who, although unconnected with the current ownership in any way, has historic links to and detailed knowledge of the site in question.
The housing site would derive electricity from the existing factory supply, upgraded if necessary. Similarly the existing water supply would be boosted to supply the new development. There is no gas supply nearby and none is anticipated. Sewage disposal would be via a self contained package disposal plant. Surface water disposal would be via existing water courses adjacent to and running through the site. Attenuation measures are planned to ensure existing run off rates would not be exceeded.
Although there are no known heritage assets in the immediate locality the applicant has been advised to carry out an archaeological survey before any work starts. Similarly a detailed ground survey is required, as the site is in part made ground. In ecological terms the most significant issue would be the need to construct a new badger sett before disturbing existing runs and to ensure existing forage routes are maintained.
Community Concerns
Not surprisingly a major development proposal of this nature has sparked considerable interest. Of the 200 people who attended the consultation events in December and January, 86 completed comment forms. The results indicate those opposing the proposals (albeit with some positive qualifications) outnumbered those supporting by roughly 2 to 1. This information is tabulated in the application, concerns raised listed, and specific proposals to meet those concerns included.
Fundamentally those concerns centre on:
-Site accessibility and location
-The ability of the existing road network to safely absorb increased traffic flows at peak times
-Increased congestion and parking problems in the centre of the village
-Additional pressure on the already overburdened doctors’ surgery and
-Potential accommodation problems at the school the increase in local population would bring
(in addition to increased demand for places from Whittington Barracks)
The application does seek to address these issues, at least in part. Key points (with our observations in brackets) to note are:
• The access road from Fisherwick Road would be widened to 5.5m (thus allowing large commercial/ emergency vehicles to pass each other) and a 1.8m wide path introduced down one side for its entire length. (The adequacy of the junction with Fisherwick Road adjacent to the rail bridge remains open to question.)
• The lack of a viable pedestrian/cycle route to the village is acknowledged. Following consultation with the Canal and Rivers Authority the applicant proposes to improve access to and upgrade the existing towpath to provide this. (Although not included in current proposals logically a footpath link should also be built over the rail bridge using one of the existing verges.)
• Detailed traffic surveys have been carried out. Computer simulations based on the likely increase the development would generate indicate that the three key junctions surveyed - one near the site, two in the village - would remain “within capacity” even at peak periods. (Although potential economic benefit to local businesses is mentioned, congestion and parking issues within the village are not addressed.)
• Given that building would take place over 5 years it is thought likely that both the school and the surgery could absorb the gradual population increase on a planned basis. On a more immediate level the applicant has apparently been in contact with the school to discuss the possibility of planning and funding a properly constituted drop off point to ease “school run” congestion. (Planning to meet any such growth would rightly be the concern of the Education Authority and the medical group practice that serves the village. Further discussion on this aspect would be essential.)
Undoubtedly current proposals to build housing in this location are contentious, but at least it has the virtue of being previously developed land. It is also clear that, in line with the Lichfield Local Plan (now close to endorsement by central government), the Parish will be asked to accommodate a significant number of new houses in the next few years. Whittington could probably absorb about a third of the likely total as infill development within existing settlement boundaries, making the greenbelt surrounding the village vulnerable to development which - although conceded in Lichfield’s ongoing greenbelt review many residents would also oppose - if no alternatives are found. Perhaps there is a balance to be struck here. As always we will keep you updated on any further developments.
Community Response
Many thanks to those of you who submitted comment forms either via e-mail, online or by handing in at the Post Office. Those forms have been collated, scanned and included in our response to Lichfield District Council. For reference, there were 8 in favour and 50 (TBC) against. Understandably a number pointed out that, whilst recognising the need for new housing, the community needed more information to make an informed assessment in order to make an informed assessment. We hope that this article goes some way to meeting that need. The key areas of concern you raised have been listed above and covered in our response to the Planning Authority.
Annex B
Copies of responses received from the community
Sent to LDC -
As the Council do not have permission to reproduce these responses and in most cases contain sensitive personal information they will not be posted on the website