AS05 AshteadParkGarden Centre
45
AS05; AS07; AS08; AS14 are all located to the east of Ashtead and fall within Area J, which has indeed been considered to have potential for development. Site AS05 is currently occupied by AshteadPark garden centre, and we note that planning permission was refused in 2003 for its redevelopment to provide housing. One of the principle reasons was the potential for encroachment into the open countryside, and we strongly disagree with the Forum’s assertion that ‘merging and encroachment would be minimal’. Indeed, the site directly abuts open fields to the north and would be very highly visible for some distance from Whitehatch Lane. Whilst the existing Garden Centre may provide a form of urbanising/previously developed land, it’s current impact is considerably less than what would result from residential development. A garden centre is a more appropriate use to which acts as a buffer/transition at this setting between the built up area and the wider countryside that is formed by the Green Belt. Furthermore, the Garden Centre provides
employment and a service for the residents of Ashtead. Development of the former Chalk Pit (Site AS07) which is adjacent to the Garden Centre would also result is a significant loss of trees which would need to be justified.
Combined the four sites total less than 6.4 hectares, of which perhaps less than two thirds is
developable. The nature of local development in the immediate area is large family homes at a density of under 9 units per hectare. Development at 30 dwellings per hectare would be completely incompatible with the local character of the area and have a significant detrimental impact upon the heritage assets. If developed at a more appropriate density of 10 dwellings per hectare, combined these four sites would deliver only 30-40 dwellings in total, which would yield only 12-16 affordable units. The housing need in the District is heavily emphasised towards two and three bed homes and affordable housing. Such development would not be compatible with the local area, and given the physical constraints and obvious lack of accessibility/access to local services, the release of Sites AS05; AS07; AS08 and AS14 from the Green Belt should be resisted. There are clearly far more sustainable unconstrained locations that could deliver development tailored to local need in
Leatherhead.
34
AS05
Development of this site, if agreed, should include rerouting of the access road from Farm Lane to the junction with Headley Road and Wilmerhatch Lane junction, whilst retaining access to existing properties. An opportunity would exist to deal with the sharp bend between the junction and “Knowl House”, along with the poor approach to the current junction. This should not be at the public`s expense, and therefore associated costs should be met by any developer appointed.
The loss of employment opportunities is disappointing, however the business can operate as it considers best for itself in these circumstances.
The site promoter`s comments omit to mention that current traffic flows are limited to the opening times of the current business- private housing would generate traffic at any time of the day.
It is noted that if the current owners wish to have the land used for development this does meet one of the Green Belt Objectives in the NPPF, although at the expense of land that is currently classified as part of the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Whilst having some development already in place this land does not appear to be “urban” in nature at present. Additionally replacement of open areas to display plants and park vehicles with housing will contribute to a “sprawling” effect towards existing development in Epsom.
16
Objections to ACV assessment:
1. General
a. The site assessments could have been written by the property owner that has put the site forward. It contains statements by the site promoter but none by nearby residents.
b. This assessment totally ignores the large number of comments that disagreed with the ACV GBBR for area J. This comprised a total of 81 of the total of 115 comments made on the ACV GGBR report, and only 40% of the total survey results that agreed with the report conclusions.
c. The GBBR identified the ‘Contribution to Green Belt’ as Merging: Minimal, and Encroachment: Minimal. This is clearly not the view of the 81 responses referenced above.
2. Factual detail
a. This is a partly developed site with significant new car parking areas. There are still significant ‘green areas on the eastern side as illustrated in the GBBR Appendix 2 for Area J1.
b. Cycle routes: the statement that there are no cycle routes is not correct. There are no formally designated cycle routes as there are very few elsewhere in Ashtead, but Pleasure Pit Road, Headly Road – Wilmerhatch Lane are used by a significant number of cyclists at weekends travelling between the Box Hill area and London/Epsom. I noted a total of 30 cyclists in 35 minutes when delivering leaflets to residents on Wilmerhatch Lane on Saturday 01-Mar-2014 at approximately 11:30am.
c. Flood risk: there is significant flood risk from Rye Brook to properties immediately to the north. Rear gardens were flooded on at least 4 separate occasions in December-2013, and January 2014, and has occurred 2 to 3 times a year over the last 3-4 years. Run-off from the hard standings at this site is likely to be a major contributing factor.
d. Site promoter comments: “The site is brownfield and can be categorised as previously developed land.” The land is a garden centre and has only recently been converted to large areas of hard standing. I would request MVDC to confirm that planning permission has been complied with for this significant change and that drainage provision complies with regulations.
e. There is no mention of impact on:
i. Sewerage infrastructure that may not be suitable for a significant new development
ii. Narrow roads, tight bends and poor road junctions in this area.
Comments on Site Assessments Site Ref: AS05 Site address: AshteadParkGarden Centre, Pleasure Pit Road
3. Sustainability Appraisal
I believe the appraisals are incorrect for the reasons given in the table below: SA Objective / Level of Compatibility / Reason for change of assessment compared to ACVACV Assessment / Local Residents Assessment
1. To provide sufficient housing to enable people to live in a home suitable to their needs and which they can afford. / Minor Positive / Minor Negative / Potentially up to 37 dwellings on this site are inappropriate for this area. The issue of affordability is questionable in this area adjacent to large and expensive properties.
2. To facilitate the improved health and wellbeing of the whole population. / Minor Positive / Minor Negative / The nearest facilities are some distance away along narrow roads, sharp bends, and infrequent footpaths.
4. To minimise the harm from flooding. / Minor Negative / Major Negative / Regular flooding after heavy rain in narrow road at bend by Ashtead House and Rye Brook immediately to the north.
5. To improve accessibility to all services and facilities. / Neutral/ Negligible / Major Negative / Narrow roads, sharp bends, poor visibility at road junctions, no footpath to Ashtead village
6. To make the best use of previously developed land that is not of high environmental value and existing buildings. / Minor Positive / Minor Negative / Site has already been overdeveloped, and no further development should occur in this critical area of Green Belt
7. To reduce land contamination / Minor Positive / Major Negative / Very close to the source of Rye Brook, which is a chalk aquifer. Present hard standings represent a risk that may not have been properly assessed.
8. To ensure air quality continues to improve. / Neutral/ Negligible / Neutral/ Negligible / Agreed
9. To reduce level of, and exposure to, noise pollution. / Neutral/ Negligible / Minor Negative / Affordable housing in this area will cause significant increase in noise pollution from ‘low noise levels within the residential areas adjoining the site’.
10. To reduce light pollution. / Minor Negative / Major Negative / Additional street lighting to affordable housing will be intrusive on the wider landscape, comprising Wilmerhatch Lane, The Ridgeway Pleasure Pit Road, Ashtead House and Woodcote Stud Farm
11. To improve the water quality of rivers & groundwater, and maintain an adequate supply of water. / Neutral/ Negligible / Major Negative / The source of the Rye Brook (chalk aquifer) is immediately to the north. Further development could have a significant impact on rivers and groundwater. Supply of potable water may also need to be increased.
12. To conserve and enhance biodiversity and networks of natural habitat. / Minor Positive / Major Negative / Replacing the garden centre with up to 37 dwellings is hardly likely to enhance biodiversity!
13. To conserve and enhance landscape character and features, the historic environment and cultural assets and their setting. / Neutral/ Negligible / Major Negative / This site is immediately adjacent to listed building Ashtead House, and narrow ribbon of Green Belt separating the urban areas of Epsom and Ashtead.
14. To reduce the need to travel, encourage sustainable transport options and make the best use of existing transport infrastructure. / Minor Negative / Major Negative / Access to Ashtead station is along narrow winding roads, and junctions with poor visibility. The junction of Farm Lane with the A24 is particularly difficult at busy commuter times. Access to Epsom Station also involves busy junctions at Woocote Side and Woodcote Road.
16. Provide for employment opportunities to meet the needs of the local economy / Minor Negative / Major Negative / The proposed development will eliminate the present employment at Ashtead garden Centre
19. To increase energy efficiency and the production of energy from low carbon, renewable & decentralised generation systems / Neutral/ Negligible / Neutral/ Negligible / Agreed
5
SiteAS 05 AshteadParkGarden Centre , Pleasure Pit Road
Page 1
1.0You refer to “The majority of the site is either paved (a mixture of tarmac, paving and gravel) or has buildings on it.”
Three permanent buildings occupy approximately 15% of the site area. These include a single storey shop/retail space, a café/restaurant and a small office and are shown shaded on plan included on the report.
The statement as written is misleading and implies the buildings are a significant development of the land. Please rewrite.
Page 2
2.0Green belt boundary review – you state that “the site is developed” which is not strictly correct. A garden centre is a permitted development on green belt land and leads to a classification of brown filed land. It is misleading to say the site is developed as this implies it has some status in context with the proposed change of use to residential from Garden Centre.
Please reconsider and amend.
3.0The same reference is made in the following paragraph which proposes that the land may be considered as being developed, which for the reasons above is incorrect.
4.0The following paragraph then discusses the green belt review and the site relationship to Ashtead house, the conservation area and listed walls and so on although these are not properly mentioned which understates the importance of these in the context of this site.
The paragraph concludes that the Green belt boundary review considers the setting and character of the area to be moderate which is understating the importance of the whole area as a historic area of Ashtead.
Please review and amend.
5.0Access and travel issues
There is discussion about the traffic generated by the garden centre and then mention of 9 houses per hectare as a density of potential development. The traffic generated by the garden centre is at different times to the peak hour traffic generated by residential development. Most of the Garden centre visitors will be at weekend or certainly not at the morning and evening rush hours when many cars use the local roads.
The site is 1.25 ha and assuming 9 houses per ha would generate say 12 houses as a minimum, however the government initiative is to maximise development and this could be higher based upon the 30 houses per ha in the MVDC guidance.
With 2 cars per household and an average of 4.5 trips per day per car as recognised as the norm in traffic impact assessment work for planning applications this would generate 84 trips per day as a minimum or 350 trips if the maximum density were permitted.
These trips would impact on the existing road network and add to the congestion at the cross road with Pleasure Pit Road, Farm Lane and Rookery Hill.
Therefore the statements about the number of vehicles using the garden centre do not relate to the impact of the residential proposal.
Page 3
6.0Flood Risk You mention the flood risk and that the EA data shows a risk but then discount it as it is only based upon computer modelling. This is how flood risks are assessed and hence this is relevant, in fact the development would have to be assessed and the impact on the area and particularly the rising of the Rye Brook nearby would need to be determined. Impact at the rising may have a knock on impact on the wider ecology along the Rye Brook as it passes through to Ashtead Common.
Page 3
7.0Landscape Character – There is a very misleading statement “By virtue of its location between several pockets of built up area, it relates more strongly to the Esher and Epsom LCA, large parts of which are urban in nature.”
This site is on the boundary with Epsom and Ewell and they have no plans to develop the greenbelt land on this boundary. This reference is irrelevant to the site and its landscape.
Page 4
8.0 You continue to say that the site is well screened form other houses and the road. The site assessment should consider the site once development has taken place and one would imagine the hedges and trees being reduced to enable the site to have visibility. This is therefore likely to have an impact on the wider landscape, please correct.
9.0You also say that the densities of property in the area are low about 9 dwellings per Ha. I take this to confirm that the site is therefore unsuitable for a more dense development making it of low value in context with the ambition of the government to deliver more homes. Your sustainability appraisal should therefore reflect this on page 6 item 1.
10.0Why is the site promoters comment included? This is a site assessment not a promotional document on behalf of the owner.
Comments on the Sustainability appraisal table
Page 6
Item 1.0 The site is not large enough to support the range of housing required, therefore rather than Minor positive the conclusion has to be major negative.
Item 2 If the local amenities and infrastructure are insufficient how can the conclusion be Minor positive, it has to be Minor negative.
Item 4 change the wording “narrow road” to Farm Lane. The impact on the Rye brook could result in a big impact and this has not been tested, the impact has to be Major Negative until this has been completed.
Item 5 The restricted availability of schools and GP surgeries must change the conclusion from Neutral to Negative.
Page 7
Item 6 The Minor positive conclusion has to be Negative given the site is in the green belt and given the comment regarding the need to investigate the existing biodiversity. The statement that it is already built upon is misleading as the existing development is a garden centre which is permitted development on the green belt land.
Item 8 Air Quality – any increase in vehicular use in the area will impact on air quality, therefore there cannot be a Neutral impact, this must be Minor negative.
Item 10 Light Pollution- again any residential dwelling will add to light pollution and so the conclusion has to be Minor negative.
Item 12 Biodiversity – the impact must be Neutral.
Item 13 Landscape and Historic setting – Any development must have a major impact on the area as it is close to Ashtead House and adjacent to green belt land. The note saying “Replacement of the existing garden centre buildings by a sympathetic development would not affect the setting.” Is incorrect, a residential development would have a major impact.
Item 14 Sustainable transport – the author states that cars will be used and so the impact has to be Major negative.
Item 16 Employment impact – the garden centre provides employment which would be lost if the residential development proceeds. This must therefore be a Major Negative not Minor negative.
Item 17 the lack of energy improvements must make the conclusion negative, until there is a proposal for energy efficient development it cannot be considered to be neutral.
11.0Comments on conclusions
The transport issues need to be mentioned in the conclusion as these are an issue.
Air quality would be worsened by the increased vehicular use.
For the above reasons I do not believe it is correct to say the development is achievable.
12
Strong local opposition to development here
1.The Ashtead Park Garden Centre Site Assessment seems to take no account whatsoever of the results of the recent Green Belt Boundary Review Consultation which showed that there is very significant local opposition to the development of this site at all. Surely the revised version will need to do so?