Planning Meeting Minutes 16/5/07
Present; Ludek Majer (B&NES Planning Department), Councillors, Stuart Campbell (Chairman- Parish Council), Hugh Delap (Vice- Chairman) and Rowena Wood and Parish Clerk, Stephanie Jenkins .
The meeting had been requested by Freshford Parish Council to discuss concerns over the implementations of the conditions attached to the planning consent on the Freshford Mill Development. The Parish Council had previously met with representatives of Ypres Rose Development and had examined their plans for the site in some detail, together with the 32 conditions imposed on the approved application.
Current Status; Despite their claim to the Parish Council at the end of March that work would be underway on the site within a matter of three or four weeks, LM stated that the only issue so far brought to him by YRD (prior to their meeting with the PC) was that they wished to alter the position of the bat house. They had been advised to consult with bat experts before bringing an ecologically sound solution to him for approval. An email from YRD had raised the possibility of the early demolition of two of the modern buildings on safety and access grounds. LM had yet to respond to this.
Height of Building C; RW raised the matter of the increased height, not apparent until the meeting with YRD. YRD had stated that to raise Building C above the flood level, the existing structure would be demolished to first floor level, the ground floor filled and the surrounding area banked up to the existing first floor level. Then the two-storey, new Building C would be set above this level. YRD said that a level given on a submission drawing had been the basis for this change. This had not been known by the Parish Council at the time of the application and, in any event, there had been no ramping shown on any drawing to make the height implication obvious. LM spoke of a 1.5metre height increase in his recollection, but if it transpires that the proposed height is now more than this, YRD will need to submit a new application for this building. It would not be treated as a minor amendment.
Flooding; one alteration proposed by YRD had been to allow water to flow through the buildings at the rear of the site, adjacent to the mill race, rather than closing off and tanking the ground floor. LM stated that he would be happy with this, provided that the Environment Agency thought it would be an effective solution. The other matter of concern to the Parish Council had been that the pond in the corner of the site had apparently been created as a feeding area for bats, rather than, as had been assumed, a space to contain flood water, radically altering the perceived flood compensation process, and SC felt that this should be referred back to the Environment Agency. LM agreed; in his view, the flooding element was crucial. He would not accept any variations on the approved scheme unless they had full Environment Agency backing. It would also not be considered as a minor amendment.
SC stated that he understood that any new application would, by law, now require a full flood analysis, which Surrey and Counties had not had to submit on their successful application. LM agreed and offered to keep Freshford Parish Council fully informed on all flooding issues as they develop.
Demolition; SC raised the point that the Conservation area status of the site had altered under the recent re-appraisal of Freshford and Sharpstone. LM stated that the historic buildings on the site could not be demolished. Demolition would be confined to the modern industrial buildings and would only take place after development had been given the permission to proceed. Normally planning permission is not required for demolition. If YRD could make a strong case for the early demolition of the two buildings requested in their recent email, then this might be possible.
Vehicular Access to the Site; YRD had stated that all lorry movements would be routed through Westwood and not Freshford. Whilst agreeing that this was the rational route, LM reminded Councillors that it is difficult to monitor ALL traffic movements.
Bat Relocation; At the meeting in March, YRD had talked of their wish to relocate the bat house from beside the pond area onto the back of Building H. LM said that in principle he had no objection to a possible change, but he stated that such a change would not be considered as a minor amendment; it would need a new submission. YRD would not necessarily have to re-submit the entire development scheme, but that would depend on how many other changes they wished to make to the approved application.
SC asked for reassurance that no demolition of the current bat-roost buildings would be permitted before proof of successful relocation. LM stated that this would be so. Materials to be used; RW stated that the Parish Council had strong concerns about the choice of cedar weatherboarding on a number of the units. It is not a material with vernacular connections in this area and Councillors felt that a render finish would be a more suitable and possibly more economical option. LM’s response was that this could be a matter for discussion, but it would certainly need a major amendment and the weatherboarding had received permission. As requested by the Parish Council, he stated that the roofing materials, rather vaguely designated on the drawings, would be closely scrutinised.External Lighting; LM stated that ANY scheme for lighting would need approval. If the developers were to request it, the site might be partly adopted, which would bring that part of the site under the Highways lighting regulations.
Gated Site; LM stated that YRD would be within their permitted rights to make this a gated community. SC informed LM that, in the view of the Parish Council, a gated community would be inappropriate in this rural location and would have adverse sociological implications.
New Site Access; RW explained that, to try to prevent traffic from the development using Rosemary Lane, the Parish Council had suggested slewing the access so that vehicles exited naturally towards Crabtree Lane. YRD had appeared to accept that solution. LM stated that, in his view it might pose problems, but it would be for Highways to examine the idea and then the matter would have to be considered by Planners, possibly as a minor amendment.
Changes to the six-bedroom house, Building H; altering this unit to two x three bedroom apartments had been suggested by YRD at their meeting with the Parish Council, on the basis that part of Building H would now be used for the new bat house, involving loss of space in the house and, in any event, two three-bedroomed properties could be more marketable. The number of bedrooms would remain the same, meaning that the size of the development would not materially change. LM was unaware of this, but confirmed that, in planning terms, any increase in the number of units would require a new application. It would not be viewed as a minor amendment.
Cumulative Impact of Changes; LM stated that the conditions attached to the permitted application will all be rigorously monitored and that work on the site should not start until the required reports and surveys have been provided and approved. It would not be sufficient for YRD to claim that this information had already been put in place by Surrey and Counties. A carefully-phased schedule of the development would be required, detailing the different stages and the accompanying traffic movement. He asked to be notified if any work was started in advance of this. To date, there had been no indication to his section of the Planning Department of any immediate action on the part of YRD. He intended to check with the Major Development Team to see whether they have received any communication from YRD. In response to RW’s question, he stated that YRD would only be able to approach Building Control through the Planning Department. At the moment it seemed that matters were not progressing at the rate indicated at the Developers’ meeting with Freshford Parish Council. LM said that the project was large enough for the planners to keep the Parish Council fully informed of any approaches by the developers to make significant alterations.
Next Step; LM asked to be provided with a copy of the Parish Council record of this meeting so that he could raise the matters discussed with Ypres Rose Developments. He would be asking them for an update on their latest position re the development. He agreed that a full set of documents and drawings can be made available for Councillors to take to be printed.