Minutes of a Meeting with Ypres Rose Developments
Wednesday March 28th, 2007 3.30pm, Freshford Memorial HallPresent; from the Parish Council, Stuart Campbell, Chairman, Rowena Wood, Hugh Delap, Pam Cobb, Richard Blamey and Stephanie Jenkins, Clerk. District Councillor, Gitte Dawson.. From the developers, Phil Desmond, Commercial Director and Richard Chaplin, Operations Director.
1. Introductions
Those round the table introduced themselves, giving details of the varied fields of experience which they brought to the meeting.
2. Brief Introduction to Ypres Rose Developments LtdPhil Desmond and Richard Chaplin set out the history of the company and gave details of its housing developments, emphasising the high quality associated with its brand. They stated that the Freshford Mill site was very important to the company and that the intention was to retain the original architects, Watson Bertram & Fell, whilst bringing in their regular construction team (some trades, for example, stone masons and roof tilers would be sourced locally). They acknowledged the complexity of the site and the increasing national concern with issues of flooding, but felt that the company had enough experience of working on brownfield sites and that the flood mitigation methods proposed would be more than adequate. 3 Brief History of the Site by Freshford Parish CouncilPrior to the meeting, YRD had been given a brief history of the site and all the previous development proposals. Stuart Campbell confirmed that there had indeed been considerable local opposition, but he stated that the Parish Council had accepted the democratic planning processes and wished to work with YRD to promote the best interests of the village. Residents had genuine concerns about the development, particularly in terms of the effects of traffic generation and access issues during construction, contamination issues, the traffic generation once the development is finished, lighting levels on the site and increase in population, the largest single influx in the history of the village.Phil Desmond stated that research done by YRD prior to the sale had made these points very clear. This was the reason that he had approached the Parish Council to set up a meeting and he assured the Chairman that YRD would listen to all concerns and attempt to reassure residents.PD expressed his concern about the website www.freshfordmill.co.uk. 4. YRD Development ProposalsPhil Desmond and Richard Chaplin explained the details of the development with reference to site drawings.The Entrance; before any construction work starts, the entrance is to be moved higher up Mill Lane. As part of the flood defence scheme, areas of the site will be raised by as much as nine feet, taking it out of the flood plain (as represented by 100-year water levels). This raising of the site will necessitate fill material being brought onto the site. PD claimed that, with the proposed measures in place, there would need to be fourteen foot of flood water above the top of the bridge before the car park on the Mill Site would be affected.
Block C; will become two houses (1x3bed, 1x4bed). The top of the current building will be removed, leaving walls to the height of 8ft which will be buried in the landfill, marking the new ground floor level. Two storeys and a roof will mean that the building is 8ft higher than at present. (Councillors queried this, but PD stated that it was only the minimum level of the floor that had been established at planning)
Block D; two houses (1x5bed, 1x4bed). Councillors made the point that these would be the most visible properties on the site, which PD accepted. Again this building will be substantially rebuilt.
Block K; one house (3 bed). This will be moved back slightly from the existing site, but will keep the same footprint. As with C and D, the top of the existing building to be removed and the ground level raised before rebuilding takes place.
Block F; two apartments (both 3 bed)
Block G; two duplex apartments (both 2 beds). These have bathrooms and bedrooms on the ground floor and living accommodation upstairs. The planners have allowed a rebuild on this block, but two existing stone walls will be kept.
Block H; PD explained that this constituted the biggest challenge, with no ground floor accommodation allowed. Currently, YRD were considering whether, instead of tanking the ground floor rooms and treating them as storage areas, it would provide better flood mitigation to retain the existing openings in the buildings, covering them with metal grilles and allowing flood water to run through. This would be discussed with the planners. The pond featured in the plans will probably not be constructed. The chimney will be retained and the brick flanking wall be replaced by natural stone.
H1, the largest portion will become two duplex apartments (both 3 bed), and three houses (two 3 bed, the other 6 bed). Although YRD are concerned that a six-bedroom property without a garden will be difficult to market and PD stated that they might apply to the planners to change this to two apartments.
H2; two apartments (both 2 bed). It is proposed to re-site the bat house on the bridge over the leat adjacent to this property.
Block A This building will remain largely intact, but will be cleaned up and with metalwork removed and windows replaced. The ground floor will be left open as in Block H. It will feature an external walkway, but contrary to the original plan there will be no waterwheel (on grounds of noise/vibration and maintenance costs). Councillors agreed that this had been an architect’s dream rather than a historic site marker.
Block A1; three apartments (all 3 bed)
Block A2; a single-storey duplex; (2/3 bed)
Block B; one 2 bed apartment –Because of the poor state of this building a wholesale rebuild has been allowed.
SC pointed out that part of the site was included in the boundary of the proposed Conservation Area and that this could affect the aesthetic/vernacular aspect of the neighbouring reconstructed buildings.
Site Parking; PD confirmed that there is to be no garaged parking. He envisaged that the parking spaces on the site would probably be designated to individual properties.
Flood Compensation; PD stated that the pond featured in the existing plans had not been intended as a space to contain flood water. It had been designed to provide a feeding area for bats (see Ecology below). The only provisions insisted on by the Environment Agency had been the raising of levels on the site before any building takes place. The Chairman stated that he would be approaching the Environment Agency to find out why the issue of flood compensation, which they had been so insistent on in the past, had apparently been dropped. Whilst there were no obvious areas upstream of the development which would be adversely affected, this was not the case downstream by The Inn and the bridge.
Contamination; PD stated that this had been the subject of an extensive survey and more would need to be done once demolition was under way; the area under the factory was of particular concern. YRD would be looking to deal with as much polluted material as possible on-site from a cost angle as well as one of disruption, but he envisaged that approximately 1400 cubic metres of contaminated “free product” would have to be removed from the site by lorry (more than 150 lorry loads). Councillors asked what route lorries would take and PD stated that it would need to be the route up Staples Hill and out through Westwood, as the centre of the village would be too congested. Demolition material would remain on site (see 5 below)
Ecology; YRD had already consulted with bat expert, Dr Roger Ransome, also with the County Ecologist and Linda Tucker from Natural England.
YRD have proposed moving the bat house from the front corner of the site to a position at the back of Block H. Their reasons for this are that, at the back of the site, there would be less disturbance to the bats during the construction period and less light disturbance and possibilities of vandalism once the properties are occupied. The bats would also be closer to their current feeding corridor. PD stated that they would be asking for this as a “minor amendment” and he confirmed that no development of the site could be undertaken until the provisions for the bats were approved and in place.
Materials; Councillors asked for details of the materials to be used for finishing the properties. PD stated that a detailed scheme had yet to be worked out, but that a combination of render and weatherboarding was under consideration. Stone would be prohibitively expensive.Councillors felt strongly that weatherboarding was not a local material and PD agreed to consider alternatives, but pointed out that cedar weatherboarding had been approved by the planners. He stated that detailed schemes, giving sample panels and tiles had to be submitted to and approved by the planning department under the conditions placed on the consent. There would be a considerable opportunity for discussion at that stage and concerns could be expressed and examined at that point. Councillors were similarly exercised about the proposed roof coverings and again PD and RC stated that these had not been finalised, but were likely to be a mix of slate and tiles. RC stated that computer-generated images will be placed on the website.
5.Development Programme and PhasingRC told Councillors that the development programme would last for a two year period and, initially would be primarily driven by the ecological conditions imposed; no building must take place until the bat house had been built and the bats taken up residence. It was hoped that this might be by the end of June. Permission had been granted for the demolition of the factory and the dangerous area between A1 and A2 at the end of April/beginning of May. From then until December YRD would be raising site levels and taking off contaminated waste; concrete and other demolition material would be crushed on-site and re-used.Lorries removing waste and bringing in plant for the site would be instructed to use the Westwood route. If any contractors failed to use this route YRD should be contacted. Councillors agreed that B&NES should be responsible for informing West Wilts and Westwood PC of this. (The Clerk was instructed to pass the meeting minutes on to Hinton Charterhouse Parish Council, as part of the site falls within their parish)Security fencing will be erected where necessary, but RC stated that the site was a difficult one to secure totally. There would be security patrols to deter vandals but it would not be possible to have a full-time presence on the site. There would be some security lighting, but this would be low-level. Information boards would give details about the programme and contact details for the company.Working hours: will be 0800 to 1800, Monday to Friday, 0900 to 1200 Saturday and none on Sundays or Bank HolidaysSite accommodation; the large warehouse shed will be used as a storage area and demolished at the end of the building period. A canteen and all facilities will be provided on-site. A site manager and a site foreman will be present and Directors will visit at least once a week; any concerns felt by residents or the Parish Council can be voiced at any time. The earliest occupation of the first new building would be June 08 and there will be a phased handover of properties until the Spring of 2009.SC asked that YRD provide the PC with details of the best contact in their new security arrangements as residents frequently observed problems and this informaton would enable the PC to advise YRD accordingly. YRD agreed to provide this as soon as their arrangements were firmed up. 6.Planning ConditionsCouncillors looked through all 32 conditions laid down by B&NES’ Planning Department and discussed them with PD and RC. There were no problems with most of these, but Councillors asked that YRD inform the Parish Council of any changes which are made as a result of consultation with the Planning Department. Those conditions which gave Councillors cause for concern were;
Number 6; arrangements for disposal of sewage. PD informed Councillors that an Environmental Agency-approved package plant would be installed at the highest point on the site. It would be a sealed unit and would be bolted to a concrete platform. The water discharged into the river from such a plant would be 97% clean, fulfilling health and safety requirements.
Number 10; disabled access. Councillors were concerned that this might mean installing more walkways and ramps. PD stated that, because of flood mitigation measures, only a percentage of properties would be able to have level access.
Number 24; structural survey of site. Councillors asked that the Parish Council be given access to such a survey. (The Chairman to make a request direct to B&NES on this).Number 25; Lighting Scheme. PD and RC assured Councillors that there would be no floodlights, spotlights or standard streetlights on the site. It was proposed to use low-energy, low-level bollard lighting round the car parking areas and footpaths, just enough for safety/security.
Number 30; Flood emergency plan. The Chairman stated that the Parish Council would be particularly concerned to see this in place as it would affect the safety of residents who would also be new members of the Parish.
Gated Community; during the course of discussion the possibility of the development being a “gated” one was raised. YRD have no specific intention of this being the case, but they stated that it would be a matter for the future residents and the management company to decide on (along with Planners). PD stated that the steps leading into the development from close by the bridge (ie NOT the main site entrance) might need a gate, as this would give access straight into the accommodation area at the rear of the site and could pose security risks. The Chairman stated that in his view any form of “gating” would risk isolating residents rather than them becoming an integrated part of the Parish.
7. Residents’ Concerns and YRD ResponseMany of these had already been dealt with under the previous agenda items; access of lorries, decontamination of the site, hours of work during the construction period, proposed lighting scheme had all been addressed.The main concern remaining was the level of post-construction, ie residential traffic which would be generated by a scheme which introduced 21 new households and their cars onto the sub standard and inadequate roads of Freshford. To avoid traffic turning up onto single-track Rosemary Lane, it was suggested that the exit from the Freshford Mill site could be splayed to throw traffic across to the right as it left the site, ensuring a route down Mill Lane and onto Crabtree Lane. PD and RC felt that this could be a useful idea and agreed to pursue this with the Planning department. 8. Marketing of New DevelopmentRC stated that the decision to market the development through Hamptons rather than YRD’s usual choice of Savills had been because they felt that Hamptons approach would be more sympathetic to YRD’s stated intention to sell to a local market, rather than a London-based investment market. They envisaged local interest amongst those looking to downsize.YRD will hold the freehold of the site until the properties are all sold and then it will be sold on to the Management Company.
9. Ongoing CommunicationDuring the construction period YRD will provide a contact list for the Parish Council and it was agreed that village communication over any concerns be channelled through the Parish Council as far as possible. An individual councillor will take on this liaison responsibility.