![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],View of the application site in relation to Ranmore (with indicative sightlines from where the site is) View of Springfield Meadow looking east out from the proposed development site Eastern end of site looking South East – this is the proposed ‘escape route’ (top right of photo) to be used when the entrance to the site floods Evidence of groundwater flooding at the Meadow (Winter 2009) . British Geological Survey state that this area is at “high susceptibility to groundwater flooding and that this should be considered in all land-use planning decisions” Traffic difficulties in one car wide Westcott Street]()
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Westcott meadows development2011v2
Ähnlich wie Westcott meadows development2011v2 (20)
Westcott meadows development2011v2
- 1. Westcott Meadows Development Village Meeting May 17, 2011
- 4. How we defeated last Taylor Wimpey Application
- 7. Proposed Development Site 14 Dwellings
- 9. The New Application Original Application This Application 5 Bedroom - 5 4 Bedroom 7 3 3 Bedroom 14 4 2 Bedroom 13 2 Total Bedrooms 96 53 Total Homes 34 14 Total Car Parks 77 43
- 10. Entrance to Site
- 17. Traffic
- 18. Traffic – now!
- 20. Traffic
- 22. Listed Buildings
- 23. Listed building
- 25. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) AONB Management Plan Development will respect the special landscape character, giving particular attention to potential impacts on ridgelines, significant views, tranquility and light pollution. (Also see CS13) Reason for refusal ‘ The proposed development would fail to conserve and enhance the existing special landscape qualities of this area , harmful to its landscape character and appearance and constituting development conspicuous from the adjacent Green Belt (conflicts with CS13 & ENV23) X
- 26. Site in an AONB!
- 28. Visual Impact (from within the AONB)? Views from the east – ‘ the magnitude of change is considered to be low /negligible, and the significance slight adverse / insignificant.’ Views from the west – ‘ the magnitude of change, as a result of development would therefore be low and the visual significance would be slight adverse becoming insignificant’. Views from the south – ‘ the visual significance slight adverse, becoming beneficial as the landscaping within the open space matures’.
- 29. TW Conclusion The assessment concludes that any impacts on the very high quality landscape of the Suffolk Hills AONB and the open landscape of the Green Belt would be neutral, and the scheme would not be visually intrusive or adversely affect the character of the adjoining landscape. Similarly, any impacts on views from within the AONB would be insignificant.
- 30. Flood Risk Reason for refusal: Insufficient information has been submitted to fully assess the potential for groundwater flooding across the site. The possible implications of such flooding events in relation to both the safeguarding of people and property, and the site’s accessibility, particularly as such events would be likely to occur at the same time as the risk of fluvial flooding is increased, could result in an unacceptable level of risk with restricted accessibility and means of escape from the proposed development.
- 33. “ the Meadow has always been a flood plain..” The Pipp Brook spilling onto its flood plain 2009
- 34. Winter flooding at the Meadow 2009 “ We moved here, from Bailey Road in 2002, and I have noted that every year since I took up residence in Springfield Road, that after a rainfall, this area of the meadow floods ”
- 35. Flood in Westcott Street – entrance to proposed site adjacent to this photo Pipp Brook approximately 2-3 feet higher than Summer flow levels
- 39. Badgers SWT - would recommend therefore that a bait marking exercise is carried out to help determine social group boundaries. ESBPS - The territorial boundaries of different social groups could only be determined with a bait marking project. TW – assessed ‘activity’ on site – confirming badgers from south and north use the site, but no bait-marking and thus no assessment of the importance of the site!
- 40. Reptiles SWT - we would suggest that further reptile survey work be carried out next year when reptiles are active to provide more details of size of any population of reptiles on site. TW – No further surveys! Desk study based on out dated data. http://www.surrey-arg.org.uk/
- 41. Bats TW – No further surveys! TW – No assessment of a known roost TW – No lighting plan SWT - The planning authority should seek further information from the applicant on the exact location of this roost and the potential effect of this development on this bat roost.
- 44. Construction Environmental Management Plan ( CEMP) The CEMP would include full details of: • Register of environmental aspects [effects of the Scheme]; • Roles and responsibilities; • Communication and co-ordination; • Training and awareness; • Operational control; • Checking and corrective action; • Environmental control measures. The environmental aspects of a CEMP should include: Wildlife nature conservation Trees Invasive species Cultural Heritage Noise Air quality & dust Water resources Waste Soils Highways & traffic Protection of amenity and services A CEMP will provide a documented procedure for controlling environmental impacts and for preventing disruption to local residents during the construction phase of the project. Taylor Wimpey Application = 26 Docs, 814pp vs CEMP = 1Doc, 2pp
- 48. Amenity
- 49. Financial situation & Fundraising
- 50. Objection to Application How to Object to the second Application by Taylor Wimpey Martin Pearcy May 2011 ...nothing has changed...
- 52. Finding the Application – Quick Link Martin Pearcy May 2011
- 53. The Application on Line Martin Pearcy May 2011
- 54. On Line Objection Martin Pearcy May 2011
- 57. End Martin Pearcy May 2011
- 63. End Martin Pearcy July 2010
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Introduce the Westcott Village association/WMAG, (Alex) TW application, what it consists of (Kevin Foo) Where we have been, what happened after the last meeting (Alex) Why we have formed, how many folk signed up to be involved The council manoeuvring, TW work done so far What we have achieved so far - various people to discuss what has been done - traffic (Mike) - Env. assessment (Craig) - flooding (Debbie) - Planning advice we have had (Alex) - Alternatives - Rond - infrastructure school, Dr, public transport, erosion of the greenbelt, creeping development (Andrea) What we can do (Andrew) write objection letter Bumper stickers Website has points to be addressed Process - Martin Content - Alex Help with writing letter of objection (Edwina) Addresses to write to ‘Director of Planning’ Donations – money/time Questions Send to Alex, Andrea, Edwina, Debbie, Martin, Kevin
- We highlighted to Mole Valley District Council the importance of different types of flooding that the site is vulnerable to – flooding from the Pipp Brook; groundwater flooding from the underlying aquifer and perched water tables; and surface water flooding which could occur if the site is developed and affect access into the site. This valuable local knowledge of residents resulted in flood risk being one of the reasons for refusal in the previous Taylor Wimpey application. And so it should continue to be one of the reasons for not developing the site…. … .The majority of the site is essentially a flood plain – this includes the access road in from Westcott St and the escape route out. … .Coupled with this the site is underlain by a well known sand geological formation called the ‘Folkestone Formation’ – this is a Principal Aquifer i.e. it contains water that is abstracted in Dorking (pumped out) and used as drinking water, hence it affords protection from disturbance and pollution due to its sensitive nature, which the Environment Agency call a ‘Source Protection Zone’ – this could potentially be greatly affected by any potential development. The aquifer is in some areas on the site is less than a metre below the grass under your feet and the water level within this aquifer under the Meadow fluctuates as you would expect with changing rainfall. Between December (21 st ) and January (17 th ), Taylor Wimpey’s environmental consultants measured a change in the water level of over 1 metre (!) in one of the exploratory boreholes.
- This slide shows the Flood Risk Zones that the site is located in – and demonstrates how the site, the main access route and the escape route is affected by potential flooding incidents. Any potential development would be like an ‘island’ or ‘moated’ development!!
- Photos and quotes from villagers.
- The key points to remember with regards to flooding are that Mole Valley District Council asked Taylor Wimpey to monitor the site for 12 months which has not yet been achieved – even if it had, the Council must remember that this has been the driest Spring for 50 years, and the warmest April for 350 years. We will have Winters and Springs which are the opposite to this – the wetter and colder, so decisions must take this into consideration, i.e. that this year is not a representative year and the site should be monitored for longer and photographic evidence should be taken into account to help complete the picture. Many parts of the site are in a 1 in 20 year flood risk zone, with susceptibility to groundwater flooding being high. Please make your feelings known on flood risk in your letters of objection to the council.
- An important note to finish on is a point in key Government Policy on development and flood risk which states that “inappropriate development in flood risk areas should be avoided”. The Council have to ensure that the appropriate ‘Exception’ and ‘Sequential’ tests as detailed in in this policy have been carried out – are there other comparative Reserve Housing sites in the area that are not affected by flooding and so are more appropriate??