Policy SG16 Asher Lane, Ripley I Do Not Consider This Site to Be
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Policy SG16 Asher Lane, Ripley I do not consider this site to be deliverable within the AVBC Core Strategy Part 1 for the following reasons: The following documents are not considered to be legally compliant: 1. Further Proposed Changes to the Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy for Amber Valley, October, 2014 2. Revisions to the Further Proposed Changes to the Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy for Amber Valley, July 2015 3. Appendix A: Summary of Representations to the Submitted Core Strategy (Published 2014) 4. Appendix C: Summary of Representations on Updated Sustainability (Published 2015) Reasons Amber Valley Borough Council have failed to consult the Canal and River Trust concerning the proposed development at Asher Lane, Ripley. This body has statutory responsibilities for the Butterley Reservoir which is adjacent to the proposed development site and potentially affects it and also for the Butterley Tunnel of the Cromford Canal within the Asher Lane site. Appendix A is therefore incomplete and does not represent the complexity of the planning situation at Asher Lane. I personally contacted the Canal and River Trust following the publication of Appendix A. The Canal and River Trust submitted detailed objections to the proposed development to Amber Valley Borough Council in December 2014. Nevertheless, Appendix C also omits the conclusions of the Canal and River Trust. FPC paragraph 2.19 and policy SG16: Proposed housing development at Asher Lane, Ripley In the light of the foregoing objections, the proposed policy does not provide a sound addition to the AVBC Core Strategy. The question of the need for changes to 2.19/SG16 in order to resolve any site specific changes: Until appropriate levels of testing and investigation are adopted at the Asher Lane site, the question of changes to 2.19/SG16 cannot be resolved. FPC 2.19 merely states that small parts of the Asher Lane site lie within Flood Zone 2 and 3. There is no up to date Flood Risk Assessment and no acknowledgment that the site lies within the inundation zone of the Butterley Reservoir. Amber Valley Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 (2009) identifies Butterley Reservoir as a potential source of residential flood risk which must be taken into account when undertaking development close to the reservoir (para 9.28). The Environmental Agency position 1. A letter from the Environment Agency to AVBC, dated 12.03.14, states that the development site at Asher Lane is in an area of potential high flood risk that could pose a risk to life and property. The new dwellings are classed as more vulnerable as per Table 2 within the NPPF with current use being less vulnerable. It is pointed out that the industrial units at Asher Lane have indeed been subject to flooding. The Environment Agency’s conclusion is that housing development at Asher Lane would be more vulnerable to flooding than these units. The Environment Agency recommendation is that if the development site is at flood risk, no development of a higher vulnerability risk should be located at the site. A letter from the Environment Agency to AVBC dated 27.03.14 states that a breach scenario is required with a Flood Risk Scenario to demonstrate the risk posed by the failure of the reservoir bank. The Environment Agency’s position is confirmed in a letter to AVBC dated 8.9.14. The letter again states that the existing Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment of 2009 is not considered to provide an up to date and proportionate evidence base upon which to apply the Exemption Test. A Level 2 assessment is required where an area is in a flood risk area. The position of the Environment Agency is reiterated in the Updated Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix C). Concern is again expressed that a Flood Risk Sequential Test has yet to be provided for the Asher Lane site. Key documents with maps showing flood risk zones have been attached to an email along with this document for reference. Questions concerning the possible contamination of the Asher Lane site are not addressed by policy SG16. They remain outstanding. An Environmental Agency letter to AVBC dated 8.9.14 raises concerns relating to the siting of the southern part of the proposed development on a former landfill site. Risks of pollution to the water environment have not been addressed. The Canal and River Trust response to AVBC (4.12.14) again points to the lack of evidence of Flood Risk Sequential and Exception Tests, as required by the NPPF and the NPPG (National Planning Practice Guidance) The Trust’s conclusion is that both the Consultation Document and the Sustainability Assessment, in their failure to consider the implications of reservoir flooding, do not provide a robust evidence base for the inclusion of the Asher Lane site in the Core Strategy. The Canal and River Trust’s conclusions are that people and property would potentially be at risk were development to proceed at Asher Lane. Butterley Reservoir and its embankment dam are classed as Category A high risk structures. Construction works associated with the development potentially pose a threat to the embankment dam. The potential effects of Probable Maximum Flood are not considered in the proposed allocation. Nor is there any consideration of whether Mitigation / Safety Measures would be necessary or indeed achievable. The possible extent and potential costs of such measures are not taken into account. The Canal and River Trust make it clear that the costs of implementation of measures to prevent flooding at Asher Lane must fall on the developer. A robust assessment of the Asher Lane has not been presented to justify its inclusion in the Core Strategy. A full assessment is a legal requirement. The above does not indicate robust satisfaction of Policy EN1: Managing Flood Risk. The developer could be faced with the requirement for provision of additional safety/remediation measures. The costs of these are presently unquantifiable. The Butterley Tunnel of the Cromford Canal Policy SG16 includes the safeguarding of the route of the disused canal through the Asher Lane site from development. The Canal and River Trust state that neither the Consultation documents nor the Sustainability Appraisal indicate awareness or understanding of the implications of the tunnel for surface development. It is further stated that without detailed investigation, a large part of the Asher Lane site will not be able to be developed. No investigation has been undertaken. Nor has the possible requirement for mitigation measures and the likely costs of these been considered. The Butterley Tunnel of the Cromford Canal is of high heritage significance (Derbyshire HER 24709). Structurally contiguous with the scheduled part of the tunnel, it must be considered to be of national importance and its structural integrity preserved. NPPF paragraph 139 states that the heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments should be considered subject to the policies of designated assets. A development which would have an impact on the unscheduled part of the Butterley Tunnel of the Cromford Canal would have a significant impact on the contiguous Scheduled Ancient Monument no. 1404832. Reference to policy E3: The Historic Environment is absent from SG16. There is no inclusion of a policy to protect the nearby signal box, as required by English Heritage (Appendix A). Nature conservation Policy SG16 fails to address this issue. Retention of existing woodland at Asher Lane is an admirable objective but it is doubtful if it can be met. The steep-sided flank of the southern part of the Asher Lane site is occupied by woodland. More woodland occupies the eastern flank of the site, not the western part as stated by Natural England, which is adjacent to Butterley Reservoir. A narrow track between these two areas of woodland connects the southern part of the Asher Lane site with Butterley Lane. Only if this track is widened to accommodate two lanes of traffic could it provide safe vehicular access to Butterley Lane from the southern site at Asher Lane. There would consequently be a loss of existing trees. Access to and from the southern site at Asher Lane would be problematical. On the one hand, there is the barrier posed by the existing works buildings. On the other hand, access via Butterley Lane would have a significant impact on Butterley Reservoir LWS and Hammersmith Meadows LNR (the latter is also a BAP site). It is suggested that here is an area of potential conflict between nature conservation and access to the southern part of the site at Asher Lane. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust oppose development at the southern part of Asher Lane because it could impact adversely on the woodland and the two LWS. Natural England seek to preserve both banks of trees at the southern part of the site at Asher Lane as a buffer and ecological link to Butterley Reservoir and Hammersmith Meadows LNR. Policy E6: Biodiversity would be nullified by such an unsympathetic development as that proposed at Asher Lane. A housing development would be more intrusive than an employment site. Development at Asher Lane would have a negative effect on nature conservation and biodiversity. Mitigation is an unrealistic objective. Articles (b) and (c) of Policy SG16 are unlikely to be achieved at Asher Lane. Proposals for development at Asher Lane do not satisfy the criteria in Policy E6. SG16 (e) A financial contribution towards a multi-user route on Butterley Lane is proposed. This policy is confused. Routing vehicular traffic from the Asher Lane site along Butterley Lane and creating a mix of motor vehicles and pedestrians is potentially hazardous. A Greenway designation would indicate a less than robust road surface.