Planning Application Comments

Application Reference:15/0153/FUL

Proposal: Erection of 6 partial subterranean dwellings, partially bunded car port; formation of new access road (terram geocell), creation of additional waterbody and hard and soft landscaping

Location:Laburnum Close, Branston

My Council has no comments
My Council wishes to comment on the proposal
My Council wishes to object to the proposal / √
My Council wishes to support this proposal.

Branston and Mere Parish Council objects to this Planning Application for the following reasons:

  • A large proportion of the land included in the applicant’s submitted plans belongs to Branston and Mere Parish Council which it does not intend to sell;
  • The proposed development is part of a recognised wet woodland conservation and amenity area;
  • Access to the site will need to go across land owned by the Parish Council, which it is not prepared to allow;
  • The proposed development would need access across a public footpath at the bottom of Laburnum Close, for which the Parish Council has a Dedication Agreement;
  • This area of Branston is Flood Zone 2 and 3, i.e. an area at high risk of flooding. There have been many previous applications for development in this area which have been refused “...the site is within the natural flood plain of the adjacent watercourse and development of the area would exacerbate present flooding problems and further increase the risk of flooding elsewhere in the area”. Please see document attached which lists the history of planning applications submitted for this area of Branston;
  • The installation and use of the on-site drainage system proposed by the application is likely to cause pollution and lasting damage to the watercourse;
  • Planning permission was granted for more than 350 new homes in Branston last year so there is no urgent need for any more new houses;
  • The applicant has assumed that trees owned and planted by the Parish Council on the public footpath at the bottom of Laburnum Close can be felled to make way for the development;
  • Laburnum Close is very narrow and access for construction vehicles and equipment will be extremely difficult, as well as being highly disruptive to local residents;
  • Work at this site will cause unacceptable disruption to villagers who have to use this area to cross from one side of the village to the other for access to schools, shops, the Village Hall and all other amenities;
  • Properties on Laburnum Close have suffered problems with subsidence and this development is likely to make this worse.

My Council would like to make the following comments:

1. / Boundary of Plot of Land
Branston and Mere Parish Council own land on the southern and eastern boundaries of the applicant’s plot. Please see attached map. Posts and wire fencing clearly mark the boundaries.
The Parish Council is very concerned that many of the maps included in the application do not outline the boundary lines correctly, particularly the southern border as the maps and diagrams included in the application indicate that the boundary is the Pipeline public footpath. This is incorrect – the boundary is well to the north of the Pipeline path.
The following maps submitted in the application incorrectly use the Pipeline footpath as the boundary:
Drawing No: P51-P001A
Drawing No: P511-P002A
Drawing No: P511-E001
Drawing No: P411- E002
Drawing No: P511-P006
Drawing No: P511-P007
Drawing No: P511-E103A
All the maps used in the Flood Risk Assessment document are incorrect.
The applicant has not approached the Parish Council about this planned development. The Parish Council has no intention of selling the land to the applicant nor is it willing to allow access across its land for this development.
2. / Flood Risk
The Parish Council is very concerned about the possible flood risk to properties built on this site.
North Kesteven Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2008) states the following about Branston:
“8.11 A very narrow strip of FZ 3 and 2 runs through the centre of the village. All the built up area is shown to be in FZ 1. 8.12 Further development should be in FZ 1.”
The plot of land that is being proposed for development in this application is part of this very narrow strip of Flood Zone 3 (“high probability” and “the functional floodplain”) and Flood Zone 2, mentioned above.
The following is stated in the NPPF, Section 10, paragraph 100 “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided”.
Furthermore, the “Flood Risk Assessment” submitted by the applicant does not rule out flooding and indicates that the author has concerns about the suitability of the site for development, for example, Para 3.4, “The potential sources of flooding which could affect the site are:
  • The streams (watercourses) which flank the site
  • Underground water.
If and when the site is developed, on-site drainage systems could also lead to flooding.”
Para 3.8, “The potential risk of flooding will be increased in the future as a result of the impact of climate change. Peak intensity of rainfall is predicted to increase by 30% over the next 100 years and flows in watercourses may increase by up to 20% over the same period.”
Most worryingly of all is the following suggestion, Para 3.9 “it may be possible to devise a flood warning system for the site...This would give residents some early warning to enable them to take preventative measures.”
The conclusion of the applicant’s Flood Risk report, raises doubts about the suitability of this site for development and in particular states that: “Because of the lack of detailed hydraulic data, a precautionary approach should be adopted whereby the floor levels of the properties are raised by at least 600mm and a degree of flood resilience introduced in the construction. Special attention will have to be given to the design of the house foundations.”
Over the years many planning applications for development in this area have been refused because of the flood risk, for example: Application No N/13/0486/95, Land off Paddock Lane, proposal to erect dwelling. This application was refused planning permission and the reason given was as follows: “The site lies within an area liable to flood. The proposed development would result in a net loss of flood storage, and thereby unacceptably increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. The proposed development, if permitted, is likely to encourage similar proposals in respect of other land within areas liable to flood, and the cumulative effect, if permitted, would be to further increase risk of flooding.”
The Parish Council is concerned that development of this site will adversely affect the balance of the current watercourse and cause problems up and downstream of the site.
The NPPF states in Para 103 “... local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere...”
In the recent approved application (14/0833) for development of 91 houses on Station Road, Branston, the flood risk assessment undertaken by the applicant stated that the watercourse to the west of the boundary of the Station Road plot “is designated as a Main River by the Environment Agency.” The “Main River” referred to is the stream which runs along the eastern boundary of the site proposed for development in this application.
The NPPF states, para 100 “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided ... “ and goes further, by saying “... should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoided where possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change, by: safeguarding land from development that is required for current and future flood management.”
The Report from the applicant states that consultation was undertaken with local residents and that they were unaware of flooding. However, residents of Laburnum Close, many of whom have lived on the Close for a long time, have said to the Parish Council that firstly, none of them were consulted as the report states and that secondly, that water rises in the winter to the top of the reeds on the site and flows over the adjacent footpath. Several residents have reported, particularly those who live in the homes at the bottom of the Close, that they have had flooding in their gardens in periods of wet weather, including floods involving sewage.
Residents of Laburnum Close have reported that many of the properties on the Close have suffered subsidence. Additionally, residents have experienced difficulty in getting buildings insurance, often only managing to by agreeing to high excesses on their policies. These residents are very concerned that work to this area is likely to cause changes to the soil structure and drainage in the area and cause them further problems with subsidence.
3. / On-Site Drainage
The boundary on the diagram showing how the proposed Drainage Plan will be laid out, submitted by the applicant, is incorrect. Again, the Pipeline footpath has been used as the boundary of the plot and the space needed for main parts of the Klargester system have been put across Parish Council land.
The Parish Council has read information about the plan for on-site drainage system and the Klargester Sewage Treatment Plant. From what has been read it appears that these systems are difficult to install in areas with high water tables. Indeed, there are reports of incidences of on-site drainage systems erupting out of the ground when water tables rise.
Klargester’s own guidelines for installation of their units include several points that seem to have been overlooked in this application, for example:
“3.6. Wherever practicable, the unit should be installed as far as possible from any habitable building. Many Local Authorities will insist on a minimum distance of 15 metres.”
The location of the Klargester Plant according to the diagram submitted by the applicant is very close to property on Laburnum Close, Cheshire Court and next to a busy public footpath.
Klargester’s guidelines also talk about smell.
“3.12. The drainage system connecting to the BioDisc must be adequately vented in accordance with the Building Regulations. The head of the drainage system should be connected to a stack pipe, open at high level, so as to draw foul air from the system and sited with consideration to prevailing wind direction. Tile vents & air admittance valves should not be used as the sole drainage ventilation facility, but if this cannot be avoided, the BioDisc should be independently ventilated. All inspection points within the drain system should be sealed so as to enable ventilation at high level.”
The prevailing wind is westerly – which will mean that foul air will be directed over the proposed new homes and onto properties on Cheshire Court, Nettleton Close, and beyond.
Additionally, Klargester, in their advice to users of their systems, make reference to the importance of a strong control on what goes into the drainage system. “Treatment plants serving a few houses do not have the benefit of dilution that occurs at a large sewage works.” And goes on to say “...treatment plants serving a few houses do not have the benefit of dilution that occurs at a large sewage works. A bottle of bleach tipped down the toilet in Birmingham would be virtually lost amongst the millions of gallons of sewage arriving at city's treatment works; a bottle of bleach in a plant serving half a dozen houses could be a lethal dose.”
Everyday household products can have a damaging effect “biological detergent can affect the biomass development. BioDisc incorporates a unique flow management system which enhances its ability to handle shock loads of detergent waste, but there are limits even to this.”
That this area is liable to flood is well known and the possibility is strongly suggested in the flood risk assessment submitted with the application. The Parish Council is extremely concerned about the risk of pollution to the whole local watercourse should a flood cause the Klargester system to fail.
4. / Sustainable Growth
Given the planning applications (13/1388, 13/0605 and 14/0833) agreed by NKDC last year for over 350 new homes in Branston, there is no obvious demand for six more. It is the Parish Council’s opinion that the negative impact of these dwellings in this location, outweigh the benefits of this type of design.
5. / Wildlife
The site proposed for development is part of a recognised wet woodland conservation and amenity area, approved for use as public recreation in 1989 (Planning ref: N/13/818/89). The Parish Council is concerned about the potential damage that could be caused to this important wildlife conservation area.
Branston’s Jungle has been listed in many publications over the years which shows its importance as a wildlife site, including the first Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan (2000):
“Parks and open spaces in Lincolnshire are particularly important for wildlife since, together with gardens, they are potential oases of wildlife habitat in a county that is intensively farmed over 93% of its area. They can support a variety of common and also declining species such as the song thrush. In addition, since they are easily accessible and are important to local people, they provide an ideal opportunity for local people to learn about biodiversity and to contribute to conservation.”
“... some sites have management plans combining wildlife with informal recreation needs. In these cases management often involves, or is initiated by, community groups and conservation volunteers, with support, training and funding accessed with help from conservation organisations. In the best cases, the impetus to improve an open space for wildlife comes from the local community. Management for wildlife is combined with informal recreation. Grassy areas are managed as wildflower meadows and woods and hedgerows are also managed for wildlife. Ponds and other new habitats are also often created. Examples of parks and open spaces managed with some wildlife considerations include: Branston Jungle“.
Branston villagers are very proud of this tranquil wildlife area and the Parish Council invests time and money not only for its Handyman to carry out tasks in the area but also pays for support from Hill Holt Wood.
Work undertaken has included the installation of wooden walkways built across the wetland so that the area is accessible to the public, clearing of brambles, the creation of living hedges, making rustic benches – The Jungle is an ongoing wildlife and conservation project. There have been a number of “work days” and “fun days” held over the years which have encouraged villagers of all ages to be involved in the area.
In 2008 the Parish Council commissioned a flora and invertebrate survey which included a visit from the County Botanist. 124 different flowering plants, trees, shrubs, grasses and sedges were found and 125 species of invertebrate were recorded. Of particular note was that three specimens of Leaf beetle (Plagiodera versicolora) were found which has been recorded from very few other sites in Lincolnshire as well as a spider (Milleriana inerrans) which is not common in the county.
The Jungle is identified as a designated Local Wildlife Site in the North Kesteven Local Wildlife Sites Review report 2008/2009 as a swamp/marsh/fen area. The report lists it as “with frequent flooding, seasonally wet/damp areas, deep ditches.” The Recorder’s report listed 70 different plant and tree species.
Planning Application N/13/0076/00 to use this land for Leisure Chalets was refused in 2000 and the reason given by North Kesteven District Council was as follows: “The site is designated as a visual amenity area under Policy H7 of the adopted North Kesteven District Local Plan. It is the opinion of the district planning authority that the development of this site for leisure chalets would be visually detrimental to the character and appearance of this important wet land area.”
The NPPF states, para 109: “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: protecting and enhancing valued landscapes”.
Furthermore, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 states in para 40, that “1) Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.”
The Parish Council believes that the application for development on this land will cause lasting damage to the whole wildlife area and, as was stated by North Kesteven in 2000, be detrimental to this important wetland area.
6. / Fly-tipping and Anti Social Behaviour
The Parish Council is unaware of fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour in this area. Does the applicant have any evidence of this with Police reports?
Branston won its class in the “Best Kept Village” competition in 2014. Inspectors from CPRE visited the village on a number of occasions last spring and summer and were very thorough in their assessment of the village, including The Jungle. Their report, which clearly states that they walked along Paddock Lane and around The Jungle, did not identify any fly-tipping or litter problem.
7. / Access to the proposed development site
Access to the site will need to go across land owned by the Parish Council, which it is not prepared to allow. The Parish Council signed a Dedication Agreement in 1992 for the public footpath which runs from Jubilee Corner (Lincoln Road, OS Grid Ref TF 01985 67450)) along the edge of the Valley Estate to Cherry Avenue, and passes along the western boundary of the applicant’s plot including along the bottom of Laburnum Close.
This Dedication includes the following:
  1. “In consideration of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement the Owner dedicates the Land for use by the public for the purpose of a public footpath.
  2. The minimum width of the public footpath shall be no less than 2 metres at all points.
  3. The Owner so dedicates as public rights of way and as a footpath the Land under this Agreement without any reservations whatsoever...”
The Parish Council questions whether the applicant has taken into account the narrowness of Laburnum Close, so narrow that bin lorries are unable to turn around in the Close but have to reverse down the road to collect residents’ domestic waste. The access into the development will be very narrow and there won’t be room for a combined pedestrian and vehicular access.
The Parish Council is not prepared to allow access to the site across land owned by the Council and also objects to the applicant’s decision to use a public footpath as the entrance to the proposed development.
8. / Trees
The applicant plans to remove the cherry tree and other trees at the bottom of Laburnum Close for access to the proposal, however, these trees are the responsibility of the Parish Council, and indeed, current Parish Councillors remember the Parish Council purchasing and planting the largest cherry tree.
The Parish Council objects to the applicant’s assumption in the plans and drawings enclosed with the application that Parish Council trees are of no consequence and can be removed.
9. / Traffic
Many residents of Laburnum Close have suffered subsidence and there have been gas leaks. Their understanding is that the current road is in a fragile condition. The Parish Council is concerned that heavy goods vehicles having to use this road during the construction of this development would cause damage to this road and it is highly likely that current homes on Laburnum Close would suffer further construction problems.
The application allows for 7 car parking spaces for 6 homes. The Parish Council is concerned that this underestimates the actual parking needs of the homes, as it is generally thought that 3-bed homes require two car parking spaces. Additionally, there has been no allowance made for car parking for visitors of the future residents of these proposed homes. Laburnum Close is narrow and any cars parked on the roadside cause a hazard. The car park area at Cheshire Court is for residents only.
Laburnum Close is extensively used by pedestrians mainly because it is a quiet, safe route through the centre of the village. The Little Pickles Nursery and Infant School are located on Beech Road and the Junior Academy, Branston Community Academy and Nursery are on Station Road. Beech Road, Laburnum Close, the Pipeline Footpath and Paddock Lane provide an essential route for the constant movement of parents and children of all ages between the various education sites. Additionally, once new housing is built on Station Road, Mere Road and Moor Lane there will be even more residents using this route.
The B1188, which in surveys has been shown to average in excess of 12k vehicle movements per day, is busy and noisy, particularly 7.30am-9.00am and 3.00pm-5.00pm, and at these peak times the route through the Jungle area is by far the safest and quickest route for pedestrians. The Pipeline path is the only footpath linking the Valley Estate and the Hillside Estate and is an essential route for residents accessing village amenities. The traffic created by heavy goods vehicles, machinery and construction staff needed to build this development will make the only safe route across the village – completely unsafe.
In conclusion, Branston and Mere Parish Council appreciates that the application for contemporary, eco homes is admirable, but cannot support this application as the site is inappropriate from every aspect.