|
|
|
Letter of Objection sent recently by a Local Resident to Madeline Winter, Head of Planning TVBC Dear Miss Winter Thank you for your letter of 2nd October 2007 providing notification of the amendments to the above application. I have, as requested, limited the scope of this letter to the amendments made by the applicant but for ease of reference I have enclosed my initial letter of objection dated 8th August 2007. Whilst the amendments to the application are welcomed they fail to adequately address my original objections which still stand. For consistency I have adopted the same headings and numbering as in my original letter A. LOCATION ES Addendum Chapter 5 The applicant has now indicated “land in order to accommodate the Proposed Development is not available at Walworth Estate, for reasons including the need for comprehensive land assembly and acquisition, the need for refurbishment and redevelopment of the building, and the time delay necessary for TVBC to progress a comprehensive Economic Regeneration Plan for the area” In summary, it would appear the applicant is claiming it would require too much time, cost and effort to regenerate this industrial estate and it is far easier to develop a vacant freehold site. The Regional Planning Guidance for the South East states in paragraph 9.19 “Freight distribution should not be at the expense of the wider community and the environment”. To develop a prime site, allocated as a business park, in the Test Valley Local Plan 2006 (“the Local Plan”) for freight distribution, in preference to redeveloping an existing industrial estate is completely at odds with the national and regional guidance on sustainable and responsible planning. It is also in direct opposition to paragraph 6.5.1 of the Local Plan which aims …”to retain existing employment land in general and industrial estates in particular. B. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ES Addendum Chapter 6 The amendments summarised in table 6.2 suggest 2683 jobs rather than 2655 jobs will be created. An increase of 28 jobs. The proposed use for areas other than Plot 4 has been amended to provide that there will be 904 office jobs representing an increase of 316 from 588, and a decrease in B1/B8 jobs from 1,000 to 712. Whilst this is to be commended it should be noted the application is limited to full planning permission for Plot 4. As regards Plot 4 no change has been made to the projected figure of 1002 B8 distribution jobs. It is entirely possible Plot 3 will never be developed and the proposed increase in office jobs allocated for that area as set out above will never materialise. The use of other areas is not a material consideration in so far as this application relates. Therefore, my objections on socio-economic grounds in respect of the jobs generated on Plot 4 still remain valid. The amendments still fall short of the Local Plan’s intention to provide a “mixed of uses and range of needs” (paragraph 10.62) and my concerns that the jobs proposed for Plot 4 will be typically low paid, unskilled, part time and temporary still stand. C. USE – INTENSIFCATION OF B8 USE ES Addendum Chapter 6 Socio-Economic Based on the floor space totals in Table 6.2 under the original application the B8 use was 88.2% of the site and under the revised proposal this proportion is now 82.95%. This still represents an unjustifiable increase in the intensification of B8 use when compared to the previous outline permission granted for development on this site. The amendments suggest a potential increase in office use for the site from 6.96% to 12.32% but this still means office use is at best ancillary and as it is zoned for Plot 3 it may never be developed in any event, and is not material to this application. D. TRAFFIC (i) Road Safety Paragraph 3.8 of the Transport Assessment acknowledges that the figures for HGV movements originally proposed were in fact “fanciful allowances”. The applicant acknowledges the traffic generated by the development of the site will be considerably greater that it originally led us to believe. However it is still maintaining in paragraph 10.40 of the E S Addendum that “Previous transport assessments for the road network surrounding the Application Site identified no location where development traffic could exacerbate existing traffic safety issues once the Hundred Acre Corner Works have been completed. Highways safety has thus not been considered further in this assessment”. In view of the applicant’s acknowledgements, the “previous transport assessments” are of no relevance and it is impossible to rely upon the conclusion that existing traffic safety issues would not be exacerbated. This needs to be further assessed in light of the new transport assessment. (ii) Impact of Construction Traffic No amendments have been made to the original figures and data provided in the original application and therefore my original objections stand. I questioned the integrity of the figures provided in the application and the applicant has acknowledged that these were indeed “fanciful allowances”. The new mitigation measure of controlling the construction traffic via a routing agreement (paragraph 10.56) of the ES Addendum is welcomed but it does not reduce the volume of traffic. In any event, in planning terms such agreements are impossible to enforce as construction vehicles can legally use any route they choose. Their use of the highway is not subject to planning controls. (iii) Impact on traffic following completion of development. 2. The applicant’s revised Transport Assessment contradicts the ES Addendum Chapter 10. In paragraph 3.7 of the Transport Assessment the applicant states the maximum two-way HGV movements per day will be 1,657. This is far greater than the 2 way traffic total of 1,354 produced in Table 8.2 of the ES Addendum. Despite this paragraph 10.46 of the Addendum maintains that “Addendum No 1 considered revisions to the Proposed Development made subsequent to the issue of the TA but concluded that these did not materially affect the figures given in Table 6.2 of the TA. Consequently, the flows given in the table remain current”. This does not make sense. The applicant is confirming the traffic figures are far greater than originally stated but have not changed the traffic flow tables. In addition, the figures still do not take account of vehicles other than the HGV’s which account, according to the applicant, for 70% of the remaining total peak hour traffic. Assuming on their own analysis that 1.657 HGV movements equate to 30% then that leaves a further 3,866 vehicle movements completely excluded from their calculations. Such substantial vehicle movements can not fail to have a substantive effect on the highways. 3. Once more we need to consider the accuracy of the applicant’s figures. Paragraph 3.8 of the Transport Assessment confirms the earlier analysis of traffic figures consisted of “more fanciful allowances” and yet in paragraph 3.7 the assessment is still being based on “corroborated Occupier – supplied data”. There is no independence or objectivity in the figures being used. The applicant is of course going to present figures in its own best interest but when even the applicant is questioning the integrity of its own figures there are substantial grounds for questioning the evidence which is being presented to the highways and planning authority. The remarks and revisions currently submitted by the applicant support my earlier assertion that the evidence provided is incomplete and inaccurate. E. TRAFFIC MITIGATION MATTERS The revisions do not impact on my earlier objections which still stand. I acknowledge the vehicle registration system could have some impact on the potential “rat-running” through Monxton, but this would be very difficult to enforce.. F. LOSS OF VISUAL AMENITY (i) Ineffective Landscaping The Design and Access Statement dated 28 September 2007 suggests that the proposed building are “generally of significant scale” but that by “introducing major landscaping zones of 60m and 40m to the southern and western boundaries respectively, this mitigates the potential visual affects”. Whilst the Soft Landscape Proposals show a more organic style of landscaping and a greater mix of species the transplants used for woodland thicket planting will be no greater than 600mm in height. The taller trees are limited to location such as building entrances and roundabouts and are limited in number. The amendments propose the unit will sit 1.1m lower in the site. If the applicant was serious about mitigating against the loss of visual amenity it would be proposing a far greater depth for sinking the building into. As it is the landscaping is insufficiently high to conceal a 15.9m tall building. The amendments do not change the original statement in paragraph 7.58 of the Environmental Statement which acknowledges the landscaping proposals will only mitigate the visual impact of the building and lighting 15 years after the development is completed (ii) Design and Scale of Building The amendments propose Unit 4 will be located further away from the dwellings on Red Post Land and will be sunk 1.1 m lower in the site. Further the elevations have been revised to provide for an undulating roof design. According to the Design and Access Statement “The underlying principle of this design is to provide a building that offers architectural character, while adding quality and aesthetic enhancement to the immediate vicinity” One has to admire the imaginative description but the fact is it is still a steel framed, warehouse of a gross internal area of 863,079 sq feet and 15.9m in height as measured from ground level. True it will now be capped with a wavy green roof. The point remains that this is not a “landmark building of a high quality” as envisaged by the Local Plan. Further, I note in paragraph 4.25 of the ES Addendum that there is an expectation that the Proposed Development would require a commitment to the Building Research Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) standard “Very Good”. In view of the Local Plan’s aspirations the BREEAM standard of “Excellent” should be imposed if the proposed development is allowed to proceed. G. POLLUTION (ii) Noise ES Addendum Chapter 10 The amendments proposed by the applicant acknowledge that “The original version of this assessment adopted an 18 hour daytime period for this noise study on the basis that no night time traffic would be generated. BTP Hyder has been informed that 24 hour operation of Plot 4 is proposed” (paragraph 10.12). Since the outset the application has always been for a 24 hour distribution centre at Plot 4 so why an 18 hour daytime period was originally adopted and put forward as an adequate basis for making a planning decision is at best questionable and at worst completely misleading. It once more calls into question the reliance which can be place on the applicant’s figures and calculations. In paragraph 10.23 the new calculations based on a 24 hour a day period assume “an extra 100 HGV’s and 10 cars” for one of the five test receptors. This assumption is completely at odds with the greater numbers of traffic movement proposed by the applicant in the Transport Assessment Supplementary Report No 1 September 2007. (“Transport Assessment”) In paragraph 3.5 of the Transport Assessment the applicant, in contrast to its earlier assertions, suggest “an average hourly one way movement of just 35 HGV’s”. The applicant has advised in paragraph 3.8 that “over the whole of the morning period, no one hour will contain more than 40 outbound HGV movements. For the afternoon he similarly advises that no one hour will contain more than 50 in bound trips”. If, for the sake of argument, you carry the applicant’s figures forward this would mean for the six hour period which was not initially included in the analysis an additional 240 – 300 HGV’s. Three times the number used for the noise assessment. As for the number of cars, the Travel Plan September 2007 states that “up to 80% of the possible employees would be involved in the “extended day” systems” ie arriving before or after a typical 12 hour assessment period. The applicant has suggested 1002 jobs will be created for Plot 4. If you use this figure and the 80% figure there will be considerably more than the extra 10 cars, which is proposed in the current noise assessment. Finally, the noise assessment figures do not take into account the large number of Light Goods Vehicles necessary to service the site nor the noise generated by trailer chillers. Even more worrying is the exclusion as “not necessary” of the noise generated by forklifts. In view of the noise measurements of delivery activities for the latter as shown in table 10.2 ie between 93.4 LAWd B to 121.5 LAWd B. A proper assessment needs to be carried out. In summary: · the figures used for the revised noise assessment are considerably less than the site traffic levels which the applicant has confirmed, · the figures do not include all modes of transport, equipment and activities and · the small increase in the figures (as calculated by the applicant’s incomplete analysis) has only been applied to one out of five test receptors. In any event the actual figures shown in the new table are still far in excess of the 55 dBLAeq 15 mins between 0800 hours and 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 45 dBLAeq5 mins required by condition 24 of the outline planning permission TVM06096/8 which was specifically imposed in the interests of the amenities in the local area and in accordance with the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policy AME04. The applicant has at least acknowledged the proposed landscaping will not be of any use in mitigating the noise and has proposed a two metre high acoustic fence around the south western boundary of the site. It is however doubtful that this limited structure will have the desired impact on the noise levels which will be generated across the site. Further mitigation is required and an independent noise assessment needs to be commissioned to take into account the realities of a developed plot 4 and all the traffic which will be generated as a result and the associated noise levels H. ECOLOGICAL ES ADDENDUM – CHAPTER 11 My earlier letter highlighted the inadequacy of the surveys carried out for the original application to establish the bio diversity of the site with particular reference to birds, badgers, bats, reptiles and brown hares. The applicant in its amendments has not commissioned any additional surveys. It has limited its additional considerations to updating its desktop study and from that concludes there are eight nature conservation designations within two kilometres of the site and there are records of water vole between 1.4 and 1.6 kilometres south of the site (paragraph 11.34) and records of brown hare and moth species within two kilometres of the site (paragraph 11.35). Further, two NVC grassland communities were recorded on the site and extensive colonies of pyramidal orchids and broomrape (paragraph 11.98). In view of the bio-diversity revealed by the additional desktop study there is even more need for additional surveys to be carried out to ensure adequate data is collected to establish the species actually located within the site. The addendum concludes that the effect of the development will be: (a) Loss of unimproved and semi-improved calcareous grassland – the effect of which will be adverse, long term and permanent. (b) Loss of habitats- the effect of which will be adverse, long term and permanent (c) Loss of pyramidial orchids broomrape and Lepidoptera species - the effect of which will be adverse and long term (d) Loss of declining farm birds, sky lark and brown hare (e) Light disturbance for commuting bats None of the above is acceptable and the mitigation measures are completely inadequate. Of great concern is the complete lack of mitigation measures proposed for reptiles or water voles. Their potential presence on the site has been completely disregarded despite water voles being a protected species. There is a recommendation that works should not take place during the nesting season for birds or breeding season for brown hares although if this is not feasible then habitats will be checked by an ecologist prior to destruction. In view of the time urgency to start development on this site it is likely that works will have to start during the nesting and breeding season. In the first instance this is not an acceptable approach to ensure we “maintain and enhance …. bio-diversity” in accordance with PPS9 Bio-diversity and Geological Conservation. If this approach is for whatever reason permitted it is imperative that any “suitably qualified ecologist” is employed by the planning authority, not the applicant or the developer and that the “checking” of the habitat involves adequate detailed surveys unlike the one hour ten minutes allocated by the applicant to the original brown hare survey. Without these conditions being imposed and enforced there will not be any protection given to the nesting birds and breeding hares. I am disappointed to note that my requests for a longer public representation in my earlier letter of object have not been addressed in any way and further disappointed that Test Valley have taken a decision not to formally acknowledge receipt of additional comments. This decision combined with the refusal to register letters of objection on the Public Access website has the effect of reducing the accountability and transparency of the planning process. I presume the officer’s report containing his recommendations for the committee meeting on 3rd December will be placed on the website to allow people to access it five working days before the meeting. If that is not the case please can you let me know? Yours sincerely CAROLINE O’FLAHERTY CC: Mr Jason Owen
Number of visitors to this page |
Send mail to
webmaster@stopmegasheds.co.uk with
questions or comments about this web site.
|