What happened in the field next to Oak Gardens and why it matters
Why was a protected woodland damaged and its associated buffer zone removed despite clear guidance from Cheshire East Officers to protect it, the HMI who noted the same, the Parish Council who sought respect for the Neighbourhood Plan, and numerous residents who demanded that the protection be established.?
From the start, the issue was clear. The Neighbourhood Plan puts the position clearly
..a ‘Bunbury Wildlife Corridor’ which follows the route of the River Gowy and its tributaries. We recommend that the corridor is identified in the Neighbourhood Plan and is protected from development.
…we suggest that an adjacent non–developable buffer zone is identified. The buffer may be in the region of 15 metres in order to fully protect high value habitats. Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan 2016 page 32 – Biodiverity Project)
It was identified in the plan but was not protected.
Cheshire East Officers were also well aware of the situation when reviewing the initial plan:
James Baggaley, Principal Nature Conservation Officer 2016, wrote:
The Woodland on the site…. appears on the national inventory of Priority Woodland habitats. Habitats of this type are a material consideration. The Woodland edge extends into the site beyond the existing fence line boundary. I note that the revised layout plan shows a retained area of Woodland excluded from the gardens of the proposed development. This area does not, however, extend to the full extent of the tree canopies of the adjacent woodland trees and so in my opinion, is unlikely to be adequate to maintain the edge habitats of the adjacent Woodland. I recommend that the submitted illustrative layout plan be amended to show an area of standoff from the adjacent Woodland.
Chris Hudson Environmental Planning Officer in response to the application in 2016, makes much the same point:
‘..the indicative design (see below) and position of certain plots are dictated by the position of the access and that the potential loss of protected Woodland to domestic garden has not been adequately addressed in the submission.
In response to these points, the developer proposed the following site layout (below) The top of the site is north, and you can see a buffer zone (of variable width) between the gardens along the western edge and the woodland. The red and black ‘blobs’ are ecological mitigation’ features added reduce the damage to wildlife.
Cheshire East Officers were also well aware of the situation when reviewing the initial plan:
In his report, the HMI who gave consent makes this comment in paragraph 26:
I understand that the application site falls within an indicative wildlife corridor as shown in the NP. The NP recommends a 15m non-developable buffer zone adjacent to the wildlife corridor. The Council has acknowledged that this appears to have been achieved in the indicative layout (above)and I have no reason to find otherwise.
Appeal Decision APP/R0660/W/16/3165643
However, the Inspector did not make this protection scheme a condition of the consent. Such details were best settled at the ‘Reserves Matters’ phase of the application once outline permission was granted. Was this the turning point when the damage to the woodland became possible?
The full history is too complex to go into in detail. There were further refusals of applications and a couple of withdrawn applications. We can see the Woodland starts to come under pressure from the comment made by the Principle Landscape Architect – James Gomulski in application 18/6338N:
The Revised Indicative Layout drawing provided a 15m non-developable buffer zone, as recommended in the Neighbourhood Plan. Not only has this buffer been reduced, but appears to be an informal extension of the rear gardens.
You can see this in the next site plan:
Note that the buffer zone has gone. But all the trees are shown as present. However, after the first deadline on application 19/5534N had expired (25/12/2019) , it was extended and a series of new documents were listed on the planning website. Thiese included
a new tree survey (a previous one was included in the initial application) that now identified the Large Ash tree as needing to be removed ‘…to provide working space for external works .’ because of ‘…Minor ingress within the outer section of the root protection area.’
(ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND METHOD STATEMENT Revised March 2020)
Just to make it clear, the last landscape plan (above) is listed (15/04/2020) after the documents identified significant changes to that landscape on 1/04/2020. What was intended was this:
The red circle highlights the ash tree 14T and the fallen oak 6T canopies, and the black circles the root protection area.. Other tree canopies are shown in green. Note that tree 6T fell over in a storm and was therefore removed by natural forces.
The Woodland on the site…. appears on the national inventory of Priority Woodland habitats. Habitats of this type are a material consideration. The Woodland edge extends into the site beyond the existing fence line boundary. I note that the revised layout plan shows a retained area of Woodland excluded from the gardens of the proposed development. This area does not, however, extend to the full extent of the tree canopies of the adjacent woodland trees and so in my opinion, is unlikely to be adequate to maintain the edge habitats of the adjacent Woodland. I recommend that the submitted illustrative layout plan be amended to show an area of standoff from the adjacent Woodland.
The reserved matters process had seen the elimination of the buffer zone and cutting back of the Protect Woodland. We might have expected the CE officers to protect the woodland and associated trees. That did not happen, and the consequences can be seen by anyone walking around the field and in the above photo.
The development was allowed to creep into the buffer zone, as can be seen in the final layout provided by the developers. Healthy trees are cut down and cut back to ensure the houses along the western edges are not in their shade. At the start, the argument ran in the opposite direction, keeping the houses back so the woodland and wildlife are protected and left relatively undisturbed. Why the change?
The Planning Application on the Methodist Chapel plot:
Planning Aplication 22/5061N
The full planning proposal is to construct two neo-Georgian-style four bedded houses on the site of the Methodist chapel at the junction of Hurst Close and Bunbury Lane. Unfortunately, as are several other required documents, no Design and Access Statement is available. So we are left with only the plans for the two houses. The site plan is below:
Plot 1 & 2
Show large neo-Georgian style buildings with nine windows to the front and eight windows plus over half the rear ground floor elevation with some full height glazing – opening presumably onto the small back garden.
We have four bedrooms, three bathrooms and a dressing room upstairs.
The only difference with plot 2 is that it currently lacks a garage.
Commentary:
This application quickly follows the sale of the site. Haste, as will hope to show, is one of the unwelcome characteristics of this proposal. To be clear, we are open to developing this site for housing. But it is within the conservation zone of lower Bunbury and in the proximity of a grade 2 listed cottage across the road. The site offers excellent potential for dwellings designed in sympathy with the surrounding area and able to contribute to dealing with the actual housing needs of the village. However, this application fails these two tests. Firstly the designs have all the sensitivity of a poke in the ribs. Did the designers look at the Village Design Code? Were they aware of the conservation zone in which they intended to place these dwellings? The results of their efforts suggest not. One might think that they looked around for an ‘oven-ready’ solution that pleased the developer and plonked it into the application after some minor alterations. Unfortunately, we have no Design & Access Statement or material to justify their choices (at the time of writing), so we are left to speculate as to how they came upon such a poor choice for this site. As far as I am aware, Bunbury has no historical example of Georgian-style properties within the village. Yet we are presented with two neo-Georgian style houses entirely out of keeping for this village.
They are also large for the site they occupy. Houses mainly fill both plots with frontages designed for cars and small rear and side gardens. These rear areas will be rather dark as they face NE, are narrow, and will be in the shade for much of the day. A human concern but not a planning issue. But what is, is the potential overshadowing of the house to the NE, which will have their garden put into the shade by the erection of these two large houses just to the south.
Further, the size of plot 2 property encroaches onto the root area of the protected walnut tree immediately to the N of the side elevation. It will have to move.
In conclusion, this application is for the wrong size and style of house in this location. They are too large for the site, over-shadow to the north, and over-dominate the cottage style of dwellings in the area. The applicant must respect the area’s specific context or the housing style most appropriate for this site. I agree, therefore, that this is an inferior application. Usually, developers try to respond to our Neighbourhood Plan and Village Design Code (both about to be updated with important modifications). But not in this case. This application suggests haste, and the need for a more sensitive plan is clear.