AGENDA ITEM 6.1
DR/03/17
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 27 January 2017
COUNTY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Construction of a flood alleviation scheme consisting of an attenuation bund (127m in length and maximum 1.2m height above ground level) with culvert through Prittle Brook and temporary attenuation area in the event of flooding, with construction and maintenance access via an existing track off Rayleigh Road Location: West Wood (Ancient Woodland), East Thundersley, Essex Ref: CC/CPT/42/16 Applicant: Essex County Council, Local Lead Flood Authority
Report by Acting Head of County Planning Enquiries to: Gráinne O’Keeffe Tel: 03330 133055 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602
1. BACKGROUND
There is no relevant planning history on the site.
2. SITE
The development site area is stated as 2.5ha, located within West Wood (an ancient woodland of circa 32ha), in Thundersley in the District of Castlepoint.
The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
The site is allocated as Public Open Space in the CastlePoint Proposals Map adopted 1998.
Bridleway PROW BENF_85 runs parallel to the northern end of the development site boundary and north of Prittle Brook.
The site is located within Flood Zone 1, as per the Environment Agency website, an area of low flood risk.
There is an existing pedestrian gate for public access from Rayleigh Road (A127) and an existing gated vehicular access for maintenance vehicles.
The nearest residential properties are located on Prittle Close and Rayleigh Road and adjoin the western site boundary.
3. PROPOSAL
The proposal is for the construction of a flood alleviation scheme consisting of an attenuation bund 127m in length and maximum 1.2m in height above ground level.
The bund would be constructed from imported inert soil and located on the route of the existing track through the woodland, reducing in height and merging with existing ground levels at the margins.
A clay core is also proposed underneath the proposed soil bund, to ensure structural stability of the bund. The clay core would ensure that lateral movement of water does not occur though the bund. The clay core would be excavated to a maximum of 1m deep by 1m wide and would run the entire length of the bund. The clay material proposed for the core is also proposed to be inert.
A culvert 900mm diameter over a distance of 16.2 metres is proposed for Prittle Brook.
The temporary attenuation area indicated to the west of the proposed bund would hold water in the event of flooding for up to 48 hours, the proposed storage capacity is 15,300m³.
The construction and maintenance access is proposed via an existing access and track off Rayleigh Road.
The overall objective of the Flood Alleviation Scheme is to reduce flood risk to people and properties in the Critical Drainage Area of East Thundersley.
4. POLICIES
The following policies are of relevance to this application:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), DCLG March 2012 Section 9: Protecting Green Belt land Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Castle Point Draft New Local Plan 2016 (not yet adopted) submitted for Examination on 25 th August 2016. (The latest update is a letter from the Inspector to Castlepoint dated 05/01/2017, notifying the District that the duty to co-operate has not been complied with)
Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states, in summary, that decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF.
Having regard to the Inspectors letter dated 05/01/2017 recommending non- adoption of the New Local Plan under Section 20(7A) of the 2004 Act, and in this situation the PPG advises that the most appropriate course of action is likely to be for the local planning authority to withdraw the plan under Section 22. Therefore at this stage no weight has been given to the Castle Point Draft New Local Plan 2016.
Castlepoint Local Plan (adopted 1998, saved 2007) Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states, in summary, that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.
An NPPF Consistency Check was published by the District on 2 nd April 2013. It compares each of the saved policies in the Castle Point Adopted Local Plan 1998 with the NPPF, and indicates the degree of consistency between the two documents. Where necessary it indicates where additional consideration should be given to policies in the NPPF in order to ensure that decisions reflect the Government’s planning objectives and presumption in favour of sustainable development. The relevant policies that are consistent with the NPPF are listed below.
Policy EC7 Natural and semi-natural features in urban areas (Policy EC7 is generally consistent with para 74 of the NPPF. However, consideration should be given to those exceptions listed in para 74 when consideration applications for development on open spaces.) Policy EC22 Retention of Trees, Woodland and Hedgerow
Policy EC38 Archaeological Sites and Monuments Policy RE12 Public Rights of Way
Essex Replacement Waste Local Plan (Pre-submission Draft March 2016) Policy 13 Landraising
Other Documents Natural England and Forestry Commission ‘Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland and veteran trees’.
5. CONSULTATIONS
CASTLEPOINT BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING – no objections in principle to the proposals. In summary, hope there is satisfactory technical evidence demonstrating the adequacy of the scheme in surface water drainage terms, particularly covering the point that betterment in this location does not create problems elsewhere. Also trust that that there would be no adverse effect on matters of nature conservation interest, given the ecological sensitivity of the site concerned.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – The EA responded to inform the Planning Authority that they should not have been consulted as it is for a proposal that does not appear on the DMPO. They stated the description of the area as having critical drainage problems has been applied locally and not as a result of any notification from the EA. (Note: Notwithstanding the fact that the EA is not a statutory consultee on this application under the DMPO, as this is an Essex led development, the County Planning Authority has subsequently requested impartial advice from the EA – if received, this will be reported orally at Committee)
LOCAL LEAD FLOOD AUTHORITY – No objection We have received a request to comment since this is a major development. However, our criteria are that we can provide comments where impermeable areas are greater than 100m2. Therefore, this would not usually meet our criteria for comments. We are commenting since we have received a specific request from the case officer including some specific questions, responses to which are outlined here, and in our wider remit as LLFA to manage flood risk from local sources. Having reviewed the Planning Statement and the associated documents which accompanied the planning application, we do not object to the granting of planning permission based on the following:
Based on Figures 5 & 6 of the Planning Statement it appears that flood risk is only increased in the woodland behind the bund where water is proposed to be attenuated. The light blue areas in the urban area to the west of the wood, which are assumed to be the deepest areas, are removed in the post-scheme scenario. This is confirmed by Section 5.2 of the Planning Statement which states: ‘The height of the bund was limited by ground levels of properties upstream. The spillway heights and lengths had to be set to maximise the amount of storage provided while not increasing water levels upstream, which required an iterative process .’
In considering alternative options, the planning statement says at 3.2 that other measures such as increasing pipe size, flow diversion and small scale attenuation features have been determined as ineffective in reducing the risk to properties. The most effective method is to attenuate water upstream by intercepting key flow paths in available open space.
Four potential bund locations were identified and the bund at land behind Queensmere was determined to no longer be feasible due to approval of a planning application at that location. The 3 proposed bunds are therefore the only locations where the flowpaths can be suitably intercepted to significantly reduce flood risk. A smaller bund could perhaps be located further west on the southern flowpath (landowner/other constraints permitting) but this would not attenuate as much flow as the proposed Bund 3 since the current bund is at the location where both flowpaths converge. Bunds were not considered east of West Wood since the restriction at the culvert behind properties at Westbourne Close is what causes the Prittle Brook to flow out of bank and form a flow path through residential areas which causes flooding (as mentioned in 3.1.1).
I have also had regard to the ‘East Thundersley Flood Alleviation Scheme Flood Risk Assessment’. This explains the modelling methodology which appears acceptable. It should be noted that the mapping included showing pre- and post- scheme flood depths is based on three bunds not just the one subject to this planning application. However, as also confirmed in Table 2 of this report Bund 3 only will result in properties being removed from being at risk during varying return events and will not increase flooding at upstream and surrounding properties. Given that the proposals will reduce risk to people and properties and will not increase flood risk elsewhere other than the woodland (which given it’s status is unlikely to be developable in the future) we have no objection.
LONDON SOUTHEND AIRPORT– No objection
NATURAL ENGLAND – No objection in principle - recognises the importance of this project to alleviate local flooding concerns, subject to informative regarding butterfly.
ESSEX WILDLIFE TRUST – No comment received.
FORESTRY COMMISSION ENGLAND – No opinion, information only. As a Non Ministerial Government Department, we provide no opinion supporting or objecting to an application, rather we are including information to help in your determinations.
Recently having visited the site and looking at the health of the trees I have concerns of the impact of prolonged time spent under water if the bund is built. The trees already show signs of decline which is due to competition and suspected continued waterlogging. The bund may increase the time the trees spend under water this would speed up their decline. This should be considered when reviewing the application.
Please also refer to technical information set out in Natural England and Forestry Commission’s Standing Advice on Ancient Woodland – plus supporting
Assessment Guide and Case Decisions.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – Any comments received will be reported.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Public Rights of Way) – No comments received
PLACE SERVICES (Ecology) – In principal objection in relation to loss of irreplaceable habitat in ancient woodland and paragraph 118 of NPPF.
PLACE SERVICES (Trees) - Support subject to conditions for tree protection.
PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) –Support subject to conditions relating to matching imported soil and bund seeding.
PLACE SERVICES (Historic Environment) – No objection subject to condition relating to Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.
LOCAL MEMBER – CASTLEPOINT – Hadleigh. Any comments received will be reported.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
43 properties were directly notified of the application. Two letters of representation have been received. These relate to planning issues covering the following matters:
Observation Comment Understand need to curb flooding but See appraisal ancient woodland are few and far between.
Recreational amenity of park.
Should not contaminate water or impact wildlife.
Care during construction.
No consultation with locals. See appraisal
Should be put on hold until full consequences area known.
7. APPRAISAL
The key issues for consideration are:
A. Principle of Development in the Green Belt B. Principle of Development in Ancient Woodland C. Impact on Biodiversity D. Impact on Trees
E. Flood Risk F. Archaeology G. Landraising
A PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN BELT
The site of the proposed development is located within in the Green Belt. It is a core planning principle of the NPPF to protect the Green Belt (paragraphs 79-92 reproduced at Appendix 2).
As per paragraph 87 “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.”
However, the proposed flood alleviation scheme, consisting of the construction of an attenuation bund, is considered to fall under ‘engineering operations’ and therefore having regard to paragraph 90 of the NPPF is “not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt.”
First it is necessary to consider whether the proposed development preserves the openness of the Green Belt. Having regard to the scale and height of the proposed bund (127m x 1.2m) and the proposed location on an existing track within a mature woodland, it is considered that it would not visually obstruct the openness of the Green Belt, and would not prevent accessibility by the public through the woodland post construction. The development of the bund would result in the existing track through the forest being up to 1.2m higher than at present but with public access being maintained. The existing public right of way, a bridleway, to the north of the application site, would not be affected and the current use as public open space would be retained. Therefore it is considered that the openness of the Green Belt would be preserved.
Secondly, it is necessary to consider whether the proposed development conflict with the purpose of including land in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 80 of the NPPF lists the 5 purposes of including land in the Green Belt as follows:- •to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas •to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another •to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment •to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns •to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Having regard to the nature of the proposed attenuation bund, as an engineering operation rather than a building, it is considered that the proposed development would not conflict with any of the 5 purposes of including land in Green Belt.
The proposed development of the attenuation bund would be appropriate in the Green Belt in accordance with paragraph 90 of the NPPF, as it is considered to be an ‘engineering operation’ that is considered to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt.
The proposed development is therefore in accordance with paragraphs 79-92 of the NPPF.
Furthermore, Policy GB8 of the emerging Local Plan promotes positive uses in the Green Belt and states the Council “will consider proposals favourably which seek to positively enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, by providing opportunities for . sustainable flood risk management” subject to a list of criteria. The proposed development of a flood attenuation bund, is considered to represent sustainable flood risk management and would be a beneficial use in the Green Belt and would be in accordance with Policy GB8. However, this policy is given limited weight, given the current status of the Plan as outlined under item 4 above.
The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle in the Green Belt, subject to meeting all other relevant planning criteria.
B PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT IN ANCIENT WOODLAND
The site of the proposed development is located within West Wood, a designated Ancient Woodland, defined in the NPPF as “An area that has been wooded continuously since at least 1600AD”.
It is one of eight Ancient Woodlands within the District, listed in Appendix 8 of the CastlePoint, Adopted Plan 1998.
West Wood consists of ancient semi-natural woodland – defined as ancient woodland sites that have retained the native tree and shrub cover that has not been planted, although it may have been managed by coppicing or felling and allowed to regenerate naturally. The Tree Survey submitted in support of the planning application states “the majority of hornbeams have been historically maintained as coppices, with the oaks have been left to grow in their natural form.”
The development site area proposed is 2.5 hectares within the overall ancient woodland area of 32 hectares at West Wood.
Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states “ When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:” including ..”planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss,”
Having regard to paragraph 118, development resulting in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland, is not acceptable in principle, unless it meets the test set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF.
A further assessment regarding the potential loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat is carried out at paragraphs C (Biodiversity) and D (Trees) below.
Potential impacts on the Ancient Woodland have also been considered in accordance with the standing advice and assessment guide published by Natural
England and the Forestry Commission. (Refer to Planning Officer’s completed assessment at Appendix 3).
If loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat is identified (at paragraphs C& D below), planning permission should be refused in accordance with paragraph 118, unless the need for and benefits of the flood alleviation scheme development in that location clearly outweigh the loss of irreplaceable habitat. This test is considered in more detail at paragraph H below.
C IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
It is a core planning principle of the NPPF to “contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment”.
Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:
• if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
• planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;
Policy EC7 of the adopted Local Plan 1998 states “Natural features, semi-natural features and open spaces within urban areas shall be retained and enhanced wherever possible in order to safeguard their physical, visual, recreational and wildlife value.
Under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC Act 2006), public bodies have a duty to conserve ‘habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England’, commonly referred to as ‘Priority Habitats or Species’.
The site is located within West Wood, ancient woodland, containing the priority habitat ‘lowland deciduous woodland’.
The site is subject of a LoWS designation: CP24 West Wood. (Refer to Appendix 4 for extract from the Castlepoint Borough Local Wildlife Sites Review 2012)
There are no statutory designations on the site. Great Wood & Dodd's Grove, the closest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is located aprox. 1km away. Natural England considers that the proposed development will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified and has no objection regarding the SSSI.
Natural England consider that identified impacts on a population of the nationally rare Heath Fritillary butterfly Melitaea athalia can be appropriately mitigated and advise monitoring of the butterfly and its food plant, Common Cow-wheat, should be carried out for at least 5 years following bund installation to assess any changes against baseline conditions and remedial measures must carried out where appropriate.
A Preliminary Ecology Appraisal has been submitted in support of the planning application. The report outlines the impacts on habitats and species at paragraph 4.3.
Direct impacts on habitats and species, are identified.
The report concludes the five hornbeams proposed for removal, have limited ecological value (intrinsically and for protected species) and the removal may benefit biodiversity by allowing more light to reach the woodland floor.
The report also concludes the removal of a small amount of scrub (aprox. 30sq.m) to the north east of Prittle Brook to be a minor impact and states scrub is of limited value to wildlife (with exception of nesting birds) and shades out other ground flora and loss is not considered to be significant.
Indirect impacts on habitats and species are also identified. The bund is designed to attenuate water west of the bund for up to 48 hours in a flood event before dispersing into Prittle Brook. Some habitats will therefore be inundated for a short amount of time. The report notes that West Wood already attenuates water informally in winter, most which collects along its eastern edge close to West Wood Gardens and within artificial scrapes. The report concludes “temporary attenuation is unlikely to cause permanent habitat change or loss, given that the areas in question already partialy inundated during winter months. It is assumed that trees area already somewhat adapted to damp conditions”
The bund would also require soil importation. The report states “soil profiles in ancient woodland are often relatively undisturbed and are vitally important for their fauna, flora and particularly fungal communities. Importing soils that are incompatible with ancient woodland profiles could result in the plant community structure being altered and incompatible species and weeds being introduced.” The report recommends soil testing to ensure appropriate soil match is achieved.
In conclusion, the development would result in some loss or deterioration of priority habitat, directly through the removal of 5 trees along the route of the proposed bund and limited scrub removal, and indirectly through water attenuation on land to the west of the proposed bund and from potentially from soil importation for the construction of the bund. There may also be impacts during the construction period.
The Council’s Ecology Consultant raises an in principal objection to development based on this loss of priority habitat.
Having regard to paragraph 118 of the NPPF, is necessary to consider the principle of avoidance, mitigation and as a last resort compensation.
The applicant (LLFA) has stated that the woodland cannot be avoided, they comment as follows: “ Through investigations and modelling, the options of increasing pipe size, flow diversion and small scale attenuation features have been determined as ineffective in reducing the risk from surface water flooding to residential properties. To reduce the risk from surface water flooding, the most effective method is to attenuate water upstream by intercepting key flow paths within a catchment in available open space. Due to the heavily urbanised nature of the catchment, there is limited open space, restricting the location of flood defence features. To alleviate flooding experienced in the eastern section of the CDA, the only open space available to attenuate the water is West Woods. There are no other locations available to attenuation flood waters in the downstream end of the catchment.”
While the applicant states the woodland cannot be avoided in the provision of flood alleviation measures, it also aims to mitigate the impact of development and states: “The biodiversity value of the woodland resource is appreciated and therefore the scheme has sort a balance between disturbance to the woodland and increasing the resilience of the local community. Initially the attenuation bund was located along the eastern boundary of the wood. This was found to be unfeasible due to the location of a flow path, access for construction and would require a significant amount of trees to be removed in the ancient woodland; therefore the attenuation bund was relocated.
The attenuation bund is proposed along a section of a well-used semi-permeable based track creating surface for pedestrians and light machinery. The track runs from north to south, crossing the Prittle Brook. This path also forms the main vehicle access into the wood for maintenance purposes therefore clear of vegetation and minimal presences of trees. Due to the well-used nature of the track it is devoid of flora. Thus the proposal provides the best location to construct the bund with minimising disturbance to the wood. The attenuation bund is designed to store flood water temporarily and the woodland will only experience wetness from the attenuation bund during times of heavy rainfall. Temporary attenuation is unlikely to cause permanent habitat change or loss, given that the areas in question area already partially inundated during winter months. It is assumed that trees are already somewhat adapted to damp conditions. The scheme has been designed so that water will discharge within 48 hours. During normal condition the woodland will not be impacted by the attenuation bund. “
The applicant has submitted information in the Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate that other options have been considered and that avoidance of the woodland is not possible.
Mitigation measures have been considered to minimise the impact on biodiversity, including the selection of the route on the footprint of an existing track through the woodland, as well as proposed trees and root protection measures. Compensation measures proposed include use of imported soils as close as possible to existing soils for the creation of the bund and seeding the bund with woodland plants.
Whether the impacts on biodiversity can be adequately mitigated needs to be
considered in combination with the test regarding development in ancient woodland.
While the proposed mitigation measures may in other circumstances be considered adequate, in this specific case, further assessment is required due to the location of the site within ancient woodland.
Notwithstanding the mitigation measures proposed to minimise impact on biodiversity, the proposed development is likely to result in some loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat, and having regard to paragraph 118 of the NPPF, planning permission should be refused, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. Furthermore, the proposal would not strictly conform with the aims of Policy EC7.
D IMPACT ON TREES
Policy EC22 of the adopted Local Plan 1989 states “In schemes for new development, existing trees, hedgerows and woods shall be retained wherever possible. Where development takes place, loss of existing tree cover and hedgerow shall be kept to a minimum. All trees and shrubs to be retained after development shall be suitable protected throughout the duration of construction.”
An ‘Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Arboricultural Method Statement’ has been submitted in support of the planning application.
Five trees are proposed to be removed to facilitate the construction of the bund. They are identified as T43, T61, T64, T65 and T69 (hornbeam) and stated to be category C.
T74 is proposed to be coppiced to prevent damage during the construction process.
The report does not record any TPO or Veteran trees within the vicinity of the proposed bund.
The bund would be in the root protection area (RPS) of many category B trees, mostly oak trees.
The exact location of the clay core, proposed underground, has not been defined and it is proposed that the exact route of the clay core would take the path of least impact to the woodland which would be informed by root radar information. (confined to red area indicated in appendix 2 – route of root radar in letter addendum 1.1 CAS 3 West Wood).
The Forestry Commission have raised concerns regarding the impact on trees from prolonged time spent under water if the bund is built. They state the trees already show signs of decline which is due to competition and suspected continued waterlogging. The bund may increase the time the trees spend under water and the Forestry Commission consider this would speed up their decline.
The Council’s Arboricultural Consultant does not raise an objection to the
proposed development subject to adequate root protection being implemented.
The loss of trees to facilitate the development has been minimised to the removal of five category C trees over a distance of 127m and subject to conditions for tree and root protection during construction, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with Policy EC 22 of the adopted Local Plan.
E FLOOD RISK
The site is located with Flood Zone 1, low flood risk, as per the Environment Agency mapping ‘Risk of flooding form Rivers and Sea’, where the land is assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding (<0.1%).
Notwithstanding the fact the proposal is for a surface water flood alleviation scheme, it is necessary to demonstrate that it will not result in flood risk elsewhere. A site specific flood risk assessment is required for proposals of 1 hectare or greater in Flood Zone 1 (as per Footnote 5 of paragraph 103 of NPPF).
A site specific flood risk assessment has been submitted by the applicant. The report concludes “These options have been considered in detail to identify optimum bund levels and spillway arrangements to maximise the volume of attenuation storage provided while not increasing the water levels at upstream and surrounding properties.”
The South Essex Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP 2012) identifies six critical drainage areas in the Castlepoint District area. The proposed flood alleviation scheme is located within one of these critical drainage areas, named CAS 3:East Thundersley (Refer to Appendix 5 for extract from the SWMP)
The applicant (ECC Local Lead Flood Authority) is seeking to manage local flood risk to properties within the critical drainage area (CDA) of East Thundersley. They state that the proposed scheme would alleviate flooding from surface water, through attenuating water upstream of residential properties. This would be achieved through the implementation of strategically placed attenuation bunds, along key flow paths within the CDA. They state “The scheme is considered to be the most sustainable way of managing flood risk from surface water and providing a long-term economically viable solution. The scheme fulfils Essex County Council’s duties as a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, to reduce local flood risk. The scheme also accords with the aims and objectives of Defra’s Making Space for Water. Works are in-line with the Environment Agency South Essex Catchment Flood Management Plan and Essex County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.”
Table 2 of the Flood Risk Assessment has modelled that the proposed Bund 3, in combination with the two other Bunds 1 & 2 would reduce the flood risk to 46 properties in a 1:100 flood event. In isolation, the currently proposed Bund 3, would alleviate flood risk to 7 properties.
In conclusion, the proposed development is designed to alleviate flooding and having regard to the information submitted, it should not result in flood risk
elsewhere. The development would be acceptable accordance with the principle of meeting the challenge of flooding, as per the NPPF.
F ARCHAEOLOGY
It is a core planning principal of the NPPF to “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations;”
An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment was submitted in support of the application.
The report concludes “The East Thundersley Flood Alleviation Scheme bunds are located in an area with identified historic environment assets. These comprise historic field boundaries related to the estate management with surviving tree lines on former or existing ditches and earthwork banks within West Wood. In addition, there is the possibility of further unknown below ground archaeology being present, particularly of the later Roman period. Archaeological deposits are both fragile and irreplaceable and the construction of the bunds has the potential to impact on archaeological deposits and landscape features.
Those areas which need mitigation as part of the proposed scheme include Bund 3:The proposed bund runs adjacent to existing earthworks located within West Wood. If the bund and its associated construction traffic remain on the present track there will be no threat to the earthworks. However, if a construction corridor is required adjacent to the track archaeological investigation of the features will be required”.
The Council Archelogy consultant comments “The Desk Based Assessment submitted with the application identified historic environment assets within the development area including historic field boundaries related to estate management with surviving tree lines on former or existing ditches and earthwork banks within West Wood. In addition, there is the possibility of further as yet unknown below ground archaeology being present, particularly of the later Roman period.” And “The proposed bund runs adjacent to existing earthworks located within West Wood. If the bund and its associated construction traffic remain on the present track there will be no threat to the earthworks. However, if a construction corridor is required adjacent to the track archaeological investigation of the features will be required.” They support the proposal subject to a condition requiring a written scheme of investigation for archaeological investigation.
In conclusion it is considered that subject to the condition outlined above, the development as proposed would conserve the historic environment in accordance with the NPPF and policy EC38 of the Local Plan.
G LANDRAISING
The construction of the proposed bund would involve land raising of approximately. 1.2metres over a distance of 127 metres.
It is proposed to construct the bund from imported inert soil, rather than from waste material. Nonetheless, as often proposals such as often source ‘spoil’ (soil waste arising from construction developments) Policy 13 of the emerging Waset Local Plan should be considered.
As per Policy 13 states “Proposals for landraising with waste will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that there are no feasible or practicable alternative means to achieve the proposed development. Proposals will also demonstrate that: a. there is a proven significant benefit that outweighs any harm caused by the proposal; b. the amount of waste materials used to raise the level of the land is the minimum amount of material necessary and is essential for the restoration of the site; and c. in the case of land remediation and other projects, will provide a significant improvement to damaged or degraded land and/or provide a greater environmental or agricultural value than the previous land use. Proposals for landraising that are considered to constitute a waste disposal activity, for its own sake, will not be permitted.
The purpose of the proposed landraising is to create a bund for flood alleviation purposes and it is not considered to constitute a waste disposal activity for its own sake and it is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy 13 of the emerging Waste Local Plan.
8. CONCLUSION
1. In respect of the need for development when considered against the loss of irreplaceable habitat, having regard to the location of the site within an Ancient Woodland, and paragraph 118 of the NPPF, “planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;”
It has been assessed in the paragraphs above that the construction of the proposed flood alleviation bund would result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat in West Wood, ancient woodland.
The construction of the proposed bund would require the removal of five trees and is likely to impact on the root protection zones of existing trees adjacent to the proposed bund. The existing woodland and trees in the area for attenuation, west of the proposed bund would also be impacted by being under water for longer period than at present.
The Natural England and Forestry Commission Assessment Guide advises “If the final conclusion is, that despite the avoidance and mitigation measures proposed, an area of ancient woodland will still be lost or significantly deteriorated then the test set out in paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework(2012) should be applied.”
Despite the avoidance and mitigation measures outlined in more detail in the
paragraphs above, there would still be loss of five trees and potential deterioration to up to 2.5ha of woodland due to likelihood of being under water for longer period during a flood event. In considering the significance of this deterioration, the 2.5ha represents 7.8% of the overall 32ha ancient woodland at West Wood.
Therefore the test to be applied in considering this planning application is – does the need for, and benefits of the proposed flood alleviation scheme at this location, clearly outweigh the loss of ancient woodland?
Therefore, the need for the flood alleviation scheme and the benefits for residential properties must be balanced against the loss and deterioration of irreplaceable habitats and ancient woodland that is likely to result from the proposed development.
The applicant, the Local Lead Flood Authority, has provided evidence that other sites were considered but that due to the built-up nature of the surrounding land, locating the development within the Ancient Woodland is the only option available to achieve the required flood alleviation for existing residential properties. Within the Ancient Woodland, the bund is proposed on the footprint of an existing track to minimise impacts.
It is Officer opinion that the need for and benefits of the proposed flood alleviation scheme would clearly outweigh the loss of priority habitat in the ancient woodland and would be in accordance with the aim of the NPPF to conserve and enhance biodiversity having regard to the principles set out in paragraph 118.
2. In conclusion, the proposed flood alleviation scheme is considered to be an ‘engineering operation’ and having regard to paragraph 90 of the NPPF would not be inappropriate in the metropolitan Green Belt, as it is considered that it would preserve the openness of the Green Belt (visually and by maintaining public access and use as open space) and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt (listed at paragraph 89 of the NPPF). Therefore the development proposed is considered acceptable in principle at this location in the Green Belt.
Notwithstanding the mitigation measures proposed, the development would result in some loss and deterioration of irreplaceable habitat, specifically the removal of five trees along the route of the proposed bund and up to 2.5ha being under water for a longer period during a flood event. Having considered the benefits of the proposed flood alleviation scheme in reducing flood risk to residential properties and human occupants, it is considered that the need for and benefits of the development clearly outweigh the loss, so as to satisfy the test set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF to conserve and enhance biodiversity.
It has been demonstrated that in alleviating flood risk through the proposed development, it would not result in increased flood risk elsewhere and therefore the proposal is considered to be acceptable.
8. RECOMMENDED
That pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General
Regulations 1992, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of 3 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the County Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details submitted by way of application reference CC/CPT/42/16 validated on 12/09/2016.
Drawings • Site Location Plan • Schematic Site Layout Plan, Version 1, dated 09/09/2016 • B3553M01-CAS3-C-DR-310-Rev. E Bund 3 Spillway Layout and Section • Tree Protection Plan, Appendix 4, Rev.1.3, dated July 2016, received 01/11/2016, prepared by Place Services • Tree Constraints Plan, Rev. 1.1, dated July 2016, prepared by Place Services
Documents • Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement, Version 1.5, dated 15/09/2016 prepared by Place Services and Addendum 1.1 dated 01/11/2016.
• Planning Statement, dated 01/09/2016
• Preliminary Ecology Appraisal, version 1.4, dated 09/08/2016
and in accordance with any non-material amendment(s) as may be subsequently approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.
3 No development shall take place (including any ground works and site clearance) until a method statement for the flood alleviation bund in West Wood has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.
The content of the method statement shall include the: a) purpose and objectives for the proposed works; b) survey baseline methodology and five year monitoring plan for Common Cow Wheat; c) adequate on-site monitoring and availability of advice over construction activities during sensitive periods or activities; d) detailed design and/or working methods necessary to achieve stated objectives (including, type and source of materials to be used); e) extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps and plans, including the areas which will be flooded; f) timetable for implementation, demonstrating that works are aligned with the ecological requirements;
g) persons responsible for implementing the works; h) initial habitat creation, aftercare and long-term maintenance; i) disposal of any wastes arising from works. j) restrictions on the removal of vegetation or earth moving within certain parts of the site; k) restrictions on the timing of the construction operations; l) restrictions on working areas through the erection of protective fencing and warning signs; m) controls over the destruction, removal or alteration of features used by protected species; n) the nature of the material to be used for the construction of the bund and confirmation that the soil/material type is compatible with the existing soil conditions of the woodland. The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter. All species used in the planting proposals within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (9th August 2016), shall be locally native species of local provenance unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.
6 Prior to commencement of development, tree protection measures shall be installed in accordance with the recommendations in BS5837:2012 and the Tree Protection Plan, Appendix 4, Rev.1.3, dated July 2016, received 01/11/2016, prepared by Place Services
7 The development shall be carried out in accordance with BS 3998:2010 tree work – recommendations
8 No development or preliminary groundworks shall take place until a written scheme and programme of archaeological investigation and recording has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme and programme of archaeological investigation and recording shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted or any preliminary groundworks.
INFORMATIVES
1. Southend Airport advise that if you require a crane or piling rig to construct the proposed development, this will need to be safeguarded separately and dependant on location may be restricted in height and may also require full coordination with the Airport Authority. Any crane applications should be directed to [email protected] or 01702 538521
2. Natural England advise that monitoring of the butterfly and its food plant, Common Cow-wheat, should be carried out for at least 5 years following bund installation to assess any changes against baseline conditions and remedial measures must carried out where appropriate.
3. The proposed bund runs adjacent to existing earthworks located within
West Wood. If the bund and its associated construction traffic remain on the present track there will be no threat to the earthworks. However, if a construction corridor is required adjacent to the track archaeological investigation of the features will be required
BACKGROUND PAPER S
Consultation replies Representations
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITA TS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (as amended)
The proposed development would not be located adjacent to/within distance to a European site.
Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission. It does however take into account any equality implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER
In determining this planning application, the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
CASTLEPOINT – Hadleigh
APPENDIX 1 – SITE LAYOUT PLAN
APPENDIX 2 – Extract from NPPF Section 9: Protecting Green Belt Land
Paragraphs 79 to 92
79. The government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
80. Green Belt serves five purposes:
• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
81. Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.
82. The general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established. New Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. If proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should:
• demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate • set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary • show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development • demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with Local Plans for adjoining areas • show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the Framework
83. Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.
84. When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.
85. When defining boundaries, local planning authorities should:
• ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development • not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open • where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period • make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development • satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period • define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent
86. If it is necessary to prevent development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt.
87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:
• buildings for agriculture and forestry • provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it • the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building • the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces • limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan • limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development
90. Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These are:
• mineral extraction • engineering operations • local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location • the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction • development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order
91. When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources.
92. Community Forests offer valuable opportunities for improving the environment around towns, by upgrading the landscape and providing for recreation and wildlife. An approved Community Forest plan may be a material consideration in preparing development plans and in deciding planning applications. Any development proposals within Community Forests in the Green Belt should be subject to the normal policies controlling development in Green Belts.
APPENDIX 3 – Forestry Commission and Natural England Assessment Guide for development in Ancient Woodland
1. Is the site of the ancient woodland the only possible place for this proposal? The applicant (Local Lead Flood Authority has put forward a case explaining the need for the flood alleviation scheme and the bund in this location, due to limited open space available in the critical drainage area. Therefore it is accepted that this is the only possible location for this proposal.
2. What size of ancient woodland will be affected? The overall site area is 2.5ha located within an overall Ancient Woodland of 32ha, the bund would be a linear feature over 127metres and the attenuation area to the west of the bund would hold water in a flood event for up to 48 hours.
The bund would be 127 metres long on an existing track which contains little vegetation although close to trees. Several semi- mature hornbeam trees would be removed, as well as an area of bramble. The proposal has tried to provide areas of woodland which would be the least damaging by using an existing track with little ground flora. No mature trees are to be removed. Potential impacts of construction –and associated recommendations- are set out in Table 4.1 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA). Construction would be restricted to existing tracks and storage areas. Ecologically sensitive areas will be fenced off. Timing of construction will be restricted to prevent any potential impacts on legally protected species.
3. Will an area of woodland be lost? The bund would be 127 metres long on an existing track which contains little vegetation, although close to trees. Several young or immature trees would be removed, as well as an area of bramble.
4. How well connected is the woodland? The Council’s Ecology Consultant advises “Connectivity would not be damaged by the proposals.”
5. Will there be damage to the Root Protection Area of the woodland or individual trees? There is potential for damage to the root protection area of trees adjacent to the existing track through the construction of the bund and digging below ground level. Compaction of soil around trees is also possible from construction vehicles. The woodland within the proposed flood attenuation area, is likely to be underwater for longer or more frequent periods than it is currently.
6. Has a survey for protected species been included in the application? Yes, this is included in the Preliminary Ecology Assessment submitted in support of the Planning Application. CHECK??
7. Does the development have the potential to affect the woodland through changes to air quality or to ground water (through pollutants or changes in
hydrology)? If so, has an assessment been carried out and appropriate mitigation proposed? The development of the soil bund is unlikely to result in changes to air quality or groundwater. The bund is proposed to attenuate surface water during a flood event.
8. Will access to the woodland increase? The woodland is currently accessible to members of the public for walking and horse riding and for maintenance vehicles along the existing access track. The proposed development would not result in any change in the current access to the woodland.
9. What is the current function, and planned function, of the land to be lost to development? The area of the proposed bund is already in use as an existing track used by members of the public and maintenance vehicles. The construction of the bund would result in the track being higher level (1.2m) and there is likely to be an impact on low hanging branches of adjoining trees. The area of the proposed flood attenuation is currently woodland that occasionally floods, this would still occur but for a possibly longer period during a flood event. The function of the land as woodland and open space would remain the same.
10. Does the landscaping scheme include native species of appropriate provenance? It is proposed to seed the sloping sides of the proposed bund.
Conclusion The construction of the bund would require the removal of some trees and is likely to impact on the root protection zones of existing trees adjacent to the proposed bund. The existing woodland and trees in the area for attenuation, west of the proposed bund would also be impacted by being under water for longer period than at present. Protected species are unlikely to be significantly affected.
The Assessment Guide advises “If the final conclusion is, that despite the avoidance and mitigation measures proposed, an area of ancient woodland will still be lost or significantly deteriorated then the test set out in paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework(2012) should be applied.”
Paragraph 118 “planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;”
Having regard to the information submitted, it appears that the proposed development would result in loss or deterioration of Ancient Woodland. Therefore the test to be applied in considering this planning application is – does the need for, and benefits of the proposed flood alleviation scheme within the Ancient Woodland, clearly outweigh the loss?
This test is considered in more detail in paragraph 7H of the main report.
APPENDIX 4 – Extract from Castlepoint Borough Local Wildlife Sites Review 2012
CPT24 West Wood (33.1ha) TQ805881 This predominantly ancient wood is bisected by Prittle Brook, with plateaus rising to north and south, and is little changed since the Middle Ages. To the north of Prittle Brook, all standards were removed during the Second World War and so those now present are all younger.
The canopy is dominated by Pedunculate and Sessile Oak (Quercus robur and Q. petraea ) with Downy and Silver Birch ( Betula pubescens and B. pendula ) and coppiced Hornbeam ( Carpinus betulus ) and Sweet Chestnut ( Castanea sativa ). Rowan ( Sorbus aucuparia ) is also present with an abundance of Wild Service-tree ( Sorbus torminalis ) and the understorey includes Holly ( Ilex aquifolium ), Hazel ( Corylus avellana ) and Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna ). There is a single very large Beech ( Fagus sylvatica ) to the south of Prittle Brook.
The ground flora is varied including the Essex Red Data List species Common Cow-wheat (Melampyrum pratense ), Woodruff ( Galium odoratum ) and Great Wood-rush ( Luzula sylvatica ) as well as many other species that are indicative of ancient woodland, including Wood Melick ( Melica uniflora ), Wood Anemone ( Anemone nemorosa ), Remote Sedge
(Carex remota ), Bluebell ( Hyacinthoides non-scripta ), Wood Millet ( Milium effusum ), Hairybrome (Bromopsis ramosus ), Wood Sedge ( Carex sylvatica ), Wood Meadow-grass (Poanemoralis ) and Black Currant ( Ribes nigrum ), Hairy Wood-rush ( Luzula pilosa ), Bush Vetch ( Vicia sepium ) and Slender St John‟s-wort ( Hypericum pulchrum ). The wood supports the England BAP Priority species Southern Wood Ant ( Formica rufa ).
England BAP Priority Habitats Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland
Selection Criteria HC1 Ancient Woodland Sites
Rationale Documentary evidence for the ancient status of this wood is extremely clear.
Condition Statement Overall the wood is in good condition.
Management Issues The site is under active conservation management with a regular programme of coppicing that should preserve its diversity. The presence of non-native species should be monitored, especially that of Variegated Yellow Archangel ( Lamiastrum galeobdolon subsp. argentatum ), which is listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Other undesirable species include a pink-sorrel ( Oxalis sp.) and Cherry Laurel ( Prunus laurocerasus ).
Review Schedule Site Selected: 1992 (W9) Reviewed: 1994 (W9), 2002 (CP24), 2007 (CP24), 2012 (CPT24)
APPENDIX 5 – Extract from South Essex Surface Water Management Plan (2012) Critical Drainage Area CAS3: East Thundersley