PINS REF: APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 LPA REF: 12/00539/OUT
Town & Country Planning Act
Appeal by Mr F Mitchell (Langham Park Developments)
HEMPSHILL HALL, LOW WOOD ROAD, NUTHALL
PROOF OF EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO LANDSCAPE & ARBORICULTURAL MATTERS
Phil Rech, B.A.Phil, CMLI
October 2013
Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
FPCR Environment and Design Ltd Registered Office: Lockington Hall, Lockington, Derby DE74 2RH Company No. 07128076. [T] 01509 672772 [F] 01509 674565 [E] [email protected] [W] www.fpcr.co.uk
This report is the property of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd and is issued on the condition it is not reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person, either wholly or in part without the written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. Ordnance Survey material is used with permission of The Controller of HMSO, Crown copyright 100018896.
“The evidence which I have prepared and provide for this appeal reference: APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 is true and has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions”
Rev Issue Status Prepared / Date Approved/Date
Draft 25 09 13 25 09 13
Rev A 10.10.13 11 10 13 Rev B 11 10 13 11 10 13
Rev C 15 10 13 15 10 13
1
Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 3
2.0 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE ...... 5
3.0 THE APPEAL SITE – CONTEXT AND CHARACTER ...... 7
4.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 11
5.0 LANDSCAPE & VISUAL APPRAISAL ...... 13
6.0 REASONS FOR REFUSAL AND KEY ISSUES ...... 17
7.0 POLICY COMPLIANCE ...... 29
8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 31
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Curriculum Vitae
Appendix 2 Aerial Photograph (Annotated)
Appendix 3 Site Photographs (and Site Areas and Viewpoints Location Plan)
Appendix 4 Landscape Masterplan
Appendix 5 Landscape Cross Sections
Appendix 6 Shadow Path Analysis
Appendix 7 Tree Survey Schedules
Figure 1 Original Survey (2012) and Plan
Figure 2 Updated Survey (2013) and Plan
Appendix 8 Draft Heads of Terms – Offsite Tree Management Plan
Appendix 9 Abingdon Appeal Decision
Appendix 10 Acoustic Fencing and Associated Planting Examples
2 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 My name is Carl Philip Rech. I am a Director in the long established, award winning, multi- disciplinary environmental design practice FPCR Environment and Design Ltd (FPCR). My full qualifications and the track record of FPCR are set out in Appendix 1. Supporting photographs and documents for the proof are included at Appendix 2 to 10.
1.2 I have over 30 years experience of complex master planning projects, often involving environmentally sensitive sites, in terms of urban design, landscape character, visual resources, arboriculture and biodiversity. These range from major urban expansion schemes (over 3,000 homes planned and built to the south west of Basingstoke) to Coston Park, the first PPS7 country house to be approved by the Secretary of State. Recent large scale sustainable mixed use schemes which have gained consent include Bilston Urban Village, North East Bridgwater and Edwalton on the southern edge of Nottingham. Here FPCR led both the urban design and environmental assessment process for 1200 new homes together with appropriate community facilities in a Green Belt location. All the necessary conditions have recently been discharged successfully.
1.3 FPCR has received numerous design awards over the years, including the 2003 Civic Trust Partnership Award for “Conkers”, the National Forest Discovery Centre, in recognition of its contribution to the regeneration of the former Leicestershire Coalfield. Our Design Code prepared to guide the development of Weedon Hill, an urban extension for 850 homes at Aylesbury, features as an exemplar scheme in the Milton Keynes – South Midlands Sustainable Communities Guide (April 2005). We have prepared numerous Design and Access Statements & Design Codes in support of master planning applications, together with the accompanying Environmental Statements where these have been required.
1.4 The practice acts as a consultant to government bodies such as the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA – formerly known as English Partnerships), Natural England, English Heritage and the Environment Agency, and I serve on the East Midlands Design Review Panel, which fulfils a similar role to that of CABE, assessing new development proposals in the region. For many years I was a committee member of the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, and was co – author of the city’s first Urban Wildlife Strategy, which was instrumental in identifying and securing long term management commitments for important habitats within the urban area. I was also responsible for Natural England’s preliminary report on the potential for restoration of Sherwood Forest Heathland.
1.5 FPCR also acts as consultants to many local authorities across the United Kingdom. We have received Landscape Institute Awards for projects carried out on behalf of Cambridge County Council (The County Waste Strategy Design Guide) and Hinckley and Bosworth (The Borough Wide Landscape Character Assessment). The Practice assisted Nottinghamshire County Council on their updated Landscape Character Study. On behalf of Rushcliffe Borough Council we prepared their Residential Design Guide supplementary planning guidance.
Background
1.6 FPCR were initially appointed by Langham Park Developments in June 2009 to provide landscape and visual, ecological and arboricultural services in relation to the site and future proposed development. As part of the planning application for development on the site, FPCR have produced the following studies:
3 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
Landscape and Visual Appraisal;
Arboricultural Survey and Assessment; and
Ecological Appraisal
1.7 FPCR worked closely with other members of the design and environment team in order to prepare a development scheme which responded to the constraints and opportunities presented by the site. The objective was to create a sustainable and attractive place to live which minimised any potential environmental disruption and maximised the benefits to the site environment and wider community. The process by which the Masterplan was prepared was an iterative one taking full account of the respective inputs from a number of environmental and technical professionals
1.8 The Appeal Proposal will create a sustainable residential development providing 116 new homes, including affordable units, together with approximately 2.0 hectares of green infrastructure incorporating conserved habitats, wetland and mature trees, other public open space, a play space and new pond and planting proposals.
4 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
2.0 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
2.1 The Local Planning Authority (Broxtowe District Council (BDC)) refusal notice states three reasons for refusal; as follows:
“Reasons:
1. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the open and undeveloped nature of the site which would conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy 16 of the Draft Broxtowe Core Strategy (part of the Draft Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies) and Policy E12 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (which is a saved policy in the draft Aligned Broxtowe Core Strategy);
2. The proximity of a number of the gardens to mature trees and the proposed embankments/ criblock walls are highly likely to have an adverse impact on the future viability of the mature trees on, and adjacent to, the application site. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy E24 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (which is a saved policy in the draft Aligned Broxtowe Core Strategy);
3. The proposed development fails to reserve a satisfactory route for the potential extension of Nottingham Express Transit. The route shown contains too much curvature and is too close to the proposed dwellings. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy T6 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (which is a saved policy in the draft Aligned Broxtowe Core Strategy).
There are no other material considerations of compelling weight that would justify treating the proposal as an exception to the guidance and policies listed above.”
2.2 In my evidence I will deal directly with the landscape, arboricultural and related design issues that are contained within Reasons 1 and 2 above. Michael Robson (Cerda Planning Consultants) will deal with the planning aspects in his Proof of Evidence and Martin Stockley and John Dolan will address the Nottingham Express Transit related issues within their Proofs of Evidence.
2.3 My evidence relates to the alleged landscape and arboricultural impacts that would arise from the proposed development and I will demonstrate that:
The site occupies an urban edge location that is very well defined and closely related to established residential development
The site is visually contained within its urban edge setting and with very limited visual influence beyond its boundaries
The proposed development will not give rise to any significant or unacceptable landscape or visual harm
The mature framework of trees within and surrounding the site would not be prejudiced by the development and would in fact form one of the key organising and structural features to assimilate the future high quality development;
The development will include landscape, ecological and public access benefits through new native tree and shrub planting; habitat creation and enhancement proposals; improved public access and the application of appropriate management practices
5 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
The resultant scheme respects and responds to the characteristics and features of the site and will deliver a sustainable and distinctive development that will be characterised by the conserved and new trees, habitat and open space proposals.
2.4 As a consequence, and bearing in mind the proven need for sustainable growth in Broxtowe, I conclude that the site can be sensitively developed in a way that does not result in any significant material harm to the landscape, visual or arboricultural resources of the site and its surrounding local amenity and character.
6 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
3.0 THE APPEAL SITE – CONTEXT AND CHARACTER
3.1 The key characteristics of the site in terms of landscape character and visual resources can be summarised as follows :-
3.2 The site’s landscape context is best illustrated by the annotated Aerial Photograph in Appendix 2 and the site and its immediate surroundings are shown on the Photo Viewpoints in Appendix 3. A plan is included within Appendix 3 that identifies the location of the photo viewpoints and the three site areas as referenced within my evidence.
Context
3.3 The development site covers an area of approximately 5.87 hectares and lies on the north western edge of Nottingham. The existing residential areas of Hempshill Vale and Bulwell lie to the north, Cinderhill to the east, Broxtowe to the south and Nuthall to the west. The M1 motorway and Junction 26 lie approximately 750 metres to the west.
3.4 The immediate context of the site is dominated by the A610 and A6002 roads and the large roundabout junction to the south and west and existing residential development to the north and north east of the site. Further north and east of the site lies Hempshill Vale, the restored landscape of a former Colliery tip and an employment area (Phoenix Park). A park and ride facility and tram link (NET) are also located in this employment area, approximately 600 metres to the east.
3.5 South of the site and the A610 lies a further large residential dominated area (Broxtowe and Chilwell Dam) leading further south towards Bilborough. North of the site and Hempshill Vale further residential areas continue and include Bulwell. The A6002 effectively limits the western extent of the majority of these existing residential areas, although to the north at Bulwell, some housing is situated to the west of the road.
3.6 In the more immediate context of the site, the landscape to the west of the A6002 comprises farmland, scattered woodland, settlement (Nuthall and New Nuthall to the west of the motorway) and the dominant M1 motorway corridor. Nuthall extends as a stretch of ribbon development along the B600 between the A610 and A6002 roundabout and the M1 motorway. All other existing residential development to the west of the A6002 at this location lies to the west of the motorway, approximately 1 kilometre from the site.
3.7 Land to the west of the site and the A6002 and leading up to the settlement edge of New Nuthall (including Nuthall and the M1 corridor) lies within Green Belt.
Landscape Assessment and Published Studies
3.8 In very broad contextual terms, the site sits at the southern extent of the Southern Magnesian Limestone National Character Area (NCA) (No.30) and close to both the Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield NCA (No.38) and Sherwood (No.49) NCA. At a more localised and relevant scale, the site occupies an urban edge context and lies almost entirely within the Urban/ Built Up Area as shown in the Greater Nottingham Landscape Character Assessment.
3.9 The northern part of the site (Area 1) and the wider landscape to the west of the A6002 (Low Wood Road) do however fall within the Nuthall Lowland Draft Policy Zone (DPZ: Ref ML016). It is not clear why this assessment study has included the northern part of the site within the more
7 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
extensive landscape area to the west of the A6002, as this road corridor forms the logical boundary between the urban area and landscape areas beyond.
3.10 However, it remains pertinent that the Greater Nottingham study identifies the majority of the site within the general Urban/ Built Up Area that stretches across most of the Greater Nottingham conurbation and not within the landscape DPZ that exists to the west.
Topography
3.11 Topographically, the site lies at around 60 – 72 metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) and comprises a series of rolling and localised landform variations. The land generally rises beyond the site boundary in all directions. To the west the land rises to over 100 metres AOD around junction 26 of the M1 motorway; to the north it rises to over 85 metres AOD at High Wood Cemetery (approx. 750 metres north of the site); to the east the restored colliery landform includes land over 95 metres AOD and to the south, Broxtowe Wood includes land over 100 metres AOD.
3.12 Within the site, the landform is largely shaped by the shallow valley of the small watercourse that runs through it from west to east. This watercourse enters the site at around 65 metres AOD (on the western edge adjoining the A6002) and leaves it on the eastern edge at around 59.0 metres AOD. To the north of this stream the land generally rises through the site. To the south and west the localised landform is significantly interrupted by the embankments for the A610 and A6002 roads. These embankments combine with surrounding rising ground to effectively form a hollow, within which the site sits.
3.13 The A610/ A6002 roundabout junction closest to the site lies at around 74.5 metres AOD. This is approximately 8 metres above the site at is nearest point and significantly, is also higher than any part of the site. The roadside embankments run close to the southern and western boundaries of the site and appear to typically range in height from 4 – 7 metres. This is notable in localised landform terms, and particularly in relation to the character and containment of the site.
Landscape Character
3.14 The site landscape comprises three small fields surrounded and contained by an outer framework of mature tree belts and woodland and major road corridors and embankments. Landscape character of the site is largely defined by its enclosed nature and the combination of mature trees, woodland and other planting and open grassland.
3.15 The northern field (described elsewhere as Area1 (See Appendix 3) is contained by a combination of the mature trees and planting with a relatively small number of properties to the east on Haise Court. This area is then separated from the next field to the south by an access track leading to Hempshill Hall, a small watercourse and some mature hedgerows and trees. This relatively lower lying field (Area 2) is further enclosed by the surrounding roadside embankments and mature trees and woodland on all sides.
3.16 To the east of this area lies a further small grassland field (Area 3) which slopes relatively more significantly than the other areas and includes an existing large pond and mature surrounding wetland habitat. This area is relatively more varied in character and also includes two very large and visually significant trees within the grassland. As with the other areas it is well enclosed and contained by the surrounding mature trees and woodland.
8 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
3.17 A public footpath extends around parts of the site perimeter and through the site for a short distance. This footpath provides links with the landscape to the west of the A6002 (from the very northern corner of the site) and to the existing residential area to the south of the A610. Existing public access is limited to this single route between the north west and southern boundaries of the site. There is no public access within any of the three fields (Areas 1 – 3). Other undefined and trodden paths are however, apparent within and around the site. These appear to be relatively well used, yet have no status and are not subject to any agreement or approval.
3.18 In summary, the site landscape is of a small to medium scale, enclosed and inward looking with little visual influence beyond its boundaries. It includes a valuable framework of mature woodland and trees, although much of this lies beyond the application site boundary.
Trees
3.19 The Arboricultural Assessment submitted with the application recorded a total of thirty individual trees, eight groups of trees and two woodlands. Appendix 7 Figure 1 gives the original tree schedule and accompanying plan. A Tree Preservation Order (Hempshill Hall Area No. 1, 2007) covers woodland and trees within and around Areas 2 and 3 of the site. This Order comprises 13 individual trees, 4 tree groups and 3 woodland areas. The woodland areas lie outside but alongside the site and one of the individual trees (TPO Ref T3) also lies beyond the site boundary. Consequently, 12 individual trees and 4 tree groups exist within the site boundary.
3.20 The individual TPO tree species include Sycamore, Lime, Ash and Horse Chestnut and the tree groups include Sycamore, Ash, Beech and Poplar.
3.21 Across the site, the quality of trees is generally considered to be high from both an arboricultural perspective and in terms of their visual contribution to the local landscape. The majority of the larger trees are however, well advanced in age and show little in the way of targeted management, with clear evidence of accumulations of dead wood, branch failings, structural collapses and low crowns etc. There is also an absence of any recent planting and younger trees.
3.22 The implementation of an appropriate arboricultural management strategy for those trees being retained within the site and adjacent to the site on land of adjoining owners such as Nottingham County Council, in highway corridors (i.e. remedial tree surgery and ongoing assessment and works), coupled with new native tree planting would improve this existing situation.
3.23 In preparation for the Inquiry, a return visit has been made to the site to reassess trees for their current condition since the original assessment. All measurements of trees were rechecked for accuracy (Appendix 7 Figure 1 and 2) includes two tree schedules, the original survey data and the updated survey data to illustrate the differences over the time period between.
3.24 There were found overall to be some slight changes to the dimensions of a small number of the trees in but none were considered significant enough in that there would be any implications as to the effect such changes would have on the overall scheme. Accuracy of heights has been checked using a digital clinometer which meant there have been both increases and decreases over the measurements originally obtained. In terms of crown spread extents, in some cases it was felt more appropriate where crowns were asymmetric to take measurements of the four compass points. All the updated measurements have been used in the formulation of the amended layout to ensure the retained trees are satisfactorily accommodated.
9 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
Summary
3.25 In summary:
The site occupies a varied urban context, abutting the existing settlement edge and strongly contained and defined by the A610 and A6002 road corridors;
It comprises pasture fields and a framework of mature woodland and trees
It is visually very well enclosed by the combination of localised landform variations, roadside embankments and mature planting
The site has a very restricted visual envelope with little visual interaction or influence beyond its boundaries – very few properties or receptors can see even parts of the site.
In landscape character terms, the site does not read as part of a broader or connected landscape corridor or area of countryside – it is a discrete and self contained parcel
It does not have a significant or recognisable relationship to Hempshill Hall or perform an important role as part of its landscape setting – any visual connectivity has been almost entirely lost and any historical relationship severely diminished.
There is no public access within any of the 3 fields and only a single public access route between the A6002 (north west of the site) and A610 to the south
An appropriate arboricultural management plan to put the retained tree cover into positive proactive long term care would ensure that the sites aging trees are managed accordingly in the interests of safety and that the new tree planting would serve to improve and enhance the sites future tree cover thereby preserving the key landscape asset.
10 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
4.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4.1 At set out in the Statement of Common Ground, the proposals “include a mix of three and four bed, terraced, semi – detached and detached family residential properties provided in a landscaped setting….There are houses proposed along the western, southern, and eastern parts of the site set out in landscaped courtyards and cul de sac providing a continuous and legible well laid out design response to the site characteristics”
4.2 The development proposals have been developed with regard to national and local design policy guidance and best practice. This has embraced, amongst others, the following documents: Manual for Streets 1 & 2 (2010), Urban Design Compendium (2007), Building for Life (2012) and Secured by Design New Homes (2010).The layout and landscape proposals are illustrated on the Landscape Masterplan (Appendix 4) and accompanying Landscape Cross Sections (Appendix 5).
4.3 The layout and design of the proposals has been directed by the environmental “capacity” of the site, with particular regard to the mature woodland and trees and other habitats within and surrounding the site and the influence of other relevant features and factors including the public right of way, Hempshill Hall and listed buildings, small watercourse etc. This “ground up” approach has ensured that the landscape, arboricultural and ecological features and areas of interest have been identified and conserved to form the key structuring components of the scheme. The built development is then assimilated within this landscape and habitat framework.
4.4 It is not necessary to repeat the detailed content of the design components of the DAS here, but the key design and landscape principles include:
“To provide a high quality environment with conserved and new open spaces, landscaped streets, and a mix of habitats and native planting;
To utilise and strengthen the existing Green Infrastructure network as an integral part of the development;
To create a distinctive sense of place and coherent and attractive edge to this particular part of Broxtowe, taking references in the use of materials and built form from local examples as appropriate;
To respect the position, scale and form of existing neighbouring properties.
To provide a mix of housing opportunities to serve a range of housing needs including a proportion that are affordable in nature;
To design safe and attractive streets designed to prioritise people (pedestrians and cyclists) over cars and to ensure parking is accommodated unobtrusively;
To allow for the potential future Nottingham Express Transit to extend through and connect with the site;
To allow for sustainable construction techniques as appropriate, to include sustainable drainage proposals;
To provide private gardens and/ or open spaces for all properties;
To extend public access and connections throughout the site, offering improved links with the existing public right of way and surrounding residential areas and facilities;
11 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
4.5 The proposals will deliver a primary tree lined street with further two further and short side streets/ cul de sacs, which are framed and enclosed by a mix of new homes, set within a strong landscape of existing woodland, trees, grassland and wetland areas. The Landscape Masterplan (Appendix 4) demonstrates how the development will be successfully integrated with the existing site landscape and features.
12 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
5.0 LANDSCAPE & VISUAL APPRAISAL
5.1 A Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) was undertaken as part of the design and pre application work. This assessed the baseline landscape character and visual resources of the site and its context and was used to inform the design and layout of the scheme and to determine the landscape and visual effects of the proposed development.
5.2 The following paragraphs provide a summary of the LVA and the key findings of the document.
Landscape Analysis
5.3 The landscape appraisal has assessed the character, features and value of the site. From this analysis, a number of reasoned conclusions can be drawn:
The site is not subject to any national, regional or local landscape quality designations;
Green Belt exists to the west of the site and a “Protected Open Areas” policy (“saved” Broxtowe Local Plan policy E12) covers the site;
The broader landscape context of the site is urban fringe and comprises large residential areas to the north and south, with a more mixed urban area to the east;
The site landscape comprises three small fields surrounded and contained by an outer framework of mature tree belts and woodland.
At a localised scale the mature planting does form a key feature and characteristic of the site landscape, although it should be noted that the majority of the existing woodland and trees do lie outside the site boundary.
Visual Analysis
5.4 An analysis of the site’s visual envelope and the availability of views towards the site has been undertaken. A series of representative viewpoints from the LVA are included to aid the visual analysis. These are included at Appendix 3 and are described below:
5.5 Viewpoint A: Taken from the northern corner of the site at the base of the A6002 roadside embankment and within the site area, this viewpoint covers the northern part of the site (Area 1: above the access track to Hempshill Hall). The shallow and contained nature of the localised dip in the topography is apparent within this viewpoint, with a number of properties on Haise Court and at Hempshill Barns visible on the more elevated land beyond the site to the east. This line of properties have the clearest view across any parts of the site.
5.6 Viewpoint B: This depicts the nature of the view across the northern field from the public footpath to the rear of the properties on Haise Court. It will also generally reflect the nature of the view from those properties immediately adjacent the site at this point. The visually enclosed nature of the site is emphasised in this viewpoint with the mature roadside trees and vegetation effectively screening views between the site and the A6002 (Low Wood Road).
5.7 Viewpoints C: The south west corner of the site sits close to the A610/ A6002 roundabout junction, yet is also effectively enclosed and screened by surrounding mature trees and vegetation. A brief “break” in this screening vegetation is apparent towards the right of the photo and does allow a brief view into a small part of the site for users of the A6002 (See Viewpoint L). This small field is also under pasture, with a small watercourse extending past the viewpoint position on the right edge of the photo.
13 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
5.8 Viewpoint D: Looking back (north westwards) across this small field the containment provided by and mature character of the surrounding trees and vegetation is further emphasised. Within this viewpoint, the A610 lies at a more elevated level behind the dense planting on the left of the viewpoint, with Hempshill Hall behind the dense mature woodland on the right of the view.
5.9 Viewpoint E: Taken from the south west corner of the small field in the east of the site, this viewpoint illustrates the mature and enclosed landscape character of this part of the site. The existing wetland area and pond is visible on the lower lying land on the right of the photo. Large mature trees both within the site and around the perimeter are clearly visible and in conjunction with the rolling grassland, largely define its landscape character. This part of the site remains very enclosed with little intervisibility beyond the surrounding planting.
5.10 Viewpoint F: Looking westwards from the eastern extent of the site, the tall mature trees and surrounding vegetation are readily apparent and enclose the small field in the east of the site. Hempshill Hall, the A610 and other nearby housing are effectively screened by the mature landscape framework.
5.11 Viewpoint G: This viewpoint is taken from Anders Drive to the north of the eastern part of the site. The view is looking towards the site which is effectively screened by the tall mature tree belt at the end of the road and beyond the intervening properties. A new publicly accessible footpath would be provided as part of the proposed development from the end of Anders Drive through the site and connecting to the existing public right of way and A610 to the south.
5.12 Viewpoint H: Taken from within the site, this viewpoint seeks to illustrate the nature of the clearest views into this eastern part of the site for the adjacent properties (on Lovell Close, Swigert Close and Anders Drive). A very small number of these properties have filtered and limited views through the tree belt. The majority of other properties on these roads do not have any views into the site.
5.13 Viewpoints I and J: Approaching from the east on the A610, vehicular users do not have any views into the site. The dense mature tree screen on the northern side of the road (lies outside the site boundary) forms a very strong and continuous visual barrier along the length of this stretch of the road. Both of these viewpoints clearly demonstrate that the site is hidden from view. Given that the site also sits significantly lower than the road and planting, it would remain effectively screened in winter when the leaves have been dropped from many of the trees.
5.14 Viewpoints K: This viewpoint is taken from the side of the A6002 (Low Wood Road) looking towards the northern part of the site. As with the views from the A610, the site is effectively screened from view by the mature roadside trees and planting. The stepped access for the public footpath denotes the northern extent of the site. As with the site in relation to the A610, it also sits down and lower that the adjacent road and planting.
5.15 Viewpoint L: Taken from alongside the A6002 (Low Wood Road) close to the A610 roundabout, this viewpoint shows the only gap in the perimeter roadside planting (as depicted in Viewpoints C and D). From this location it is possible to see into the mature trees and planting surrounding the small field in the south west part of the site. Although the gap in the planting allows a view through to the trees and woodland it does not provide a clear view to the grassland within this part of the site. The fact that this small filed sits significantly lower than the adjacent road and nearby roundabout ensures that a strong degree of visual enclosure is maintained.
14 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
5.16 The following conclusions are reached and reflect those set out in the original landscape and visual appraisal for the site:
In visual terms, the site is very effectively screened by the surrounding mature tree belts and woodland. The Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) (or visible extent) of the site and potential development within it would be minimal and limited to the immediate boundaries of the site.
There are very few receptors, properties or locations that have views to even a small part of the site. The vast majority of the surrounding residential properties have no existing views into or across the site
No receptors, properties or locations have views across large parts of the site – visually it is compartmentalised
With the exception of the small gap in the perimeter roadside tree belts (close to the roundabout and on the A6002), there are no clear views into the site from the adjacent roads or settlement or landscape areas to the south or west
Few sites are as well defined and visually enclosed by its immediate urban and landscape setting as this one.
Landscape & Visual Effects
5.17 The effects of the proposed development on landscape and visual resources and receptors will not be significant or lead to any unacceptable landscape or visual harm. These conclusions can be drawn from the following
The site is not subject to any statutory landscape quality designations;
The site’s immediate landscape context is varied and urban fringe and includes extensive residential areas and major roads;
The Greater Nottingham Landscape Character Assessment includes the majority of the site within the Urban/ Built Up area, rather than the adjoining landscape Draft Policy Zone;
The development lies outside the Green Belt which exists to the west;
The “Protected Open Areas” Local Plan policy defined around Hempshill Hall in 1994 is no longer justifiable in landscape or visual terms;
The site is extremely well defined and contained with robust and enduring boundaries;
The proposed development would have a very limited visual envelope and influence and would be seen from very few locations and receptors;
From the surrounding roads, only very brief and limited views towards the proposed development will be possible and the nature of this visual change will be negligible in the context of the major junction;
The enclosed and wooded surrounds and grounds of Hempshill Hall would not be affected by the proposals;
15 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
The proposed development will have no significant effect upon the landscape setting of the Hall which is surrounded to the east, west and south by mature planting and woodland;
The vast majority of the mature woodland tree groups and individual trees within the site will be conserved and maintained for their long term contribution to local visual amenity;
Other grassland and wetland habitats, including the large pond and small watercourse will be conserved, with a new pond formed and management works undertaken to maximise biodiversity and amenity interest
The character, scale and extent of the proposed development takes its lead from the landscape and environmental “capacity” of the site and is both sensitive and modest
16 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
6.0 REASONS FOR REFUSAL AND KEY ISSUES
6.1 I now address the reasons for refusal in respect of landscape and arboricultural matters. I set out below the relevant stated reasons for refusal and the key issues arising from these and other relevant officers and objectors concerns
Reason for Refusal 1
“The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the open and undeveloped nature of the site which would conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy 16 of the Draft Broxtowe Core Strategy (part of the Draft Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies) and Policy E12 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (which is a saved policy in the draft Aligned Broxtowe Core Strategy);
Reason for Refusal 2
“The proximity of a number of the gardens to mature trees and the proposed embankments/ criblock walls are highly likely to have an adverse impact on the future viability of the mature trees on, and adjacent to, the application site. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy E24 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (which is a saved policy in the draft Aligned Broxtowe Core Strategy);
6.2 Having thoroughly reviewed the Reasons for Refusal and the relevant issues and concerns arising from the Committee Report and other correspondence, I believe that the following matters are those requiring specific attention and evaluation:
Effects upon the open and undeveloped nature of the site landscape;
Status and impact upon the Protected Open Area Local Plan policy;
Visual effects upon the road corridors and approaches to/ from the motorway and surrounding properties
Impact upon existing trees and woodland areas
Implications of the existing trees and woodland areas upon the use and amenity of the proposed gardens and open space
6.3 I will consider each of these issues in turn.
Effects upon the open and undeveloped nature of the site landscape
6.4 It is accepted that built development on the site will have a direct effect upon its existing open and undeveloped nature. New dwellings will be located throughout the three grassland areas, which will however remain very well contained by the surrounding mature woodland and trees. The significance of this effect and the loss of the three small grassland areas is localised and contained.
6.5 The existing site landscape has very limited influence beyond its boundaries and it contributes little towards openness within its immediate context. The most significant attributes of the site landscape and its character are the mature woodland areas and trees, many of which lie outside its boundary. Other positive elements include the large pond and small watercourse. With the exception of a very small number of trees, all of these features are to be conserved within the development proposal.
17 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
6.6 The landscape and visual appraisal of the site and the proposed development concluded that
“Given its landscape character and features, it is considered that the site could assimilate an appropriate extent and scale of development without unacceptable effects on its landscape and visual resources …
In principle, proposed development should be sited within the fields and avoid the need to remove any existing mature trees, woodland or planting (except where this is necessary for arboricultural reasons or is otherwise unavoidable eg in terms of locating vehicular access)….
The loss of the open areas to built development would change the landscape character of the site, yet as stated and subject to the detail design of the proposals, this should not result in an unacceptable or overriding landscape effect. The site landscape does have the capacity to accommodate appropriate and high quality development within the existing open areas.
6.7 New native tree, shrub and hedgerow planting and other habitat proposals, coupled with the application of a sympathetic management regime will further strengthen these landscape features and characteristics and lessen the resultant landscape effects. The landscape and green infrastructure components of the proposed development will extend to approximately 2 hectares, thus representing approximately one third of the overall development area.
6.8 Whilst the scheme will have some localised adverse effects upon the character of the site landscape it should be noted that the effects upon the key landscape features of the site (ie tree groups, trees, pond and watercourse) will be negligible and in the medium and longer terms will be enhance with the additional planting and habitats. The large existing pond will be conserved as will its mature planted setting and the new smaller balancing pond to be created will be designed to maximise its contribution to the site`s landscape amenity and ecology.
6.9 In addition to the landscape and ecological benefits, the provision of new public access and a play facility further extends the local landscape benefits. New footways will extend beyond the proposed central street to offer valuable connections through the public open space and between the existing public right of way (PROW) and the existing surrounding residential areas and roads. This will include a link through the public open space (Area 3) between the southern end of Andres Drive and the PROW towards the centre of the site. A further link and connection with the existing PROW will be established in the north (Area 1) of the site. It is also important to note that the existing PROW route and connections will be maintained. A localised yet valuable benefit will arise from this improved public access.
6.10 The proposed arboricultural management would additionally serve to improve and enhance the sites tree cover through its delivery in seeking to not only address the condition of the aging tree population in terms of identifying practical tree surgery to preserve as far as possible their continuing safe contribution to the site but also to manage new trees planted. Beyond that, a programme of regular inspections would be able to further identify specific aspects of future care and maintenance of the sites tree stock accordingly through any remedial work required in the interests of public safety by approved tree surgeons. The proposed development would therefore be positive for the sites retained trees as currently, there is a clear absence of younger trees to provide the new generation of trees and general management.
18 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
6.11 A separate Tree Management Plan will be prepared and implemented in conjunction with Nottinghamshire County Council to manage the highway corridor tree planting around the western and southern boundaries of the site. Appendix 8 sets out the outline details as to what might be included within such a management plan, the final content requiring agreement with the Authority. The off-site tree works have already been agreed in principal that these areas are in much needed management intervention since their planting.
6.12 The proposals for tree management of both on and offsite trees would be beneficial to the tree covers long term contribution it has to the proposed development and to perpetuate the local tree population.
Status and impact upon the Protected Open Area Local Plan policy
6.13 6.3.1 of the Committee Report advises that the “saved” Local Plan Policy E12 – “Protected Open Areas” (POA) has been carried forward from 1994. It also includes reference to the accompanying text in the 2004 Local Plan policy that states “The area around Hempshill Hall, Nuthall, is important to the setting of Listed Buildings on the site and to the approach to the city on this major route.”
6.14 This policy and the defined boundaries date back almost 20 years and there appears to be no landscape or open space assessment or justification to support either the policy or the extent of the defined areas, either now or 20 years ago. The most recent assessment study undertaken covering this part of the settlement edge landscape is the Greater Nottingham Landscape Character Assessment (undertaken to provide evidence to inform Greater Nottingham’s aligned Local Development Framework (LDF)) and as detailed in my description of the context and character of the site, this makes no specific reference to the site in landscape or open space terms. It also makes no reference to the protection of this area or its contribution in landscape or open space terms.
6.15 It would seem that the area was afforded the local designation at that time for the two reasons stated in the accompanying text to the policy, namely; due to its importance
to the setting of the Listed Buildings; and
to the A610 road approach to the city.
6.16 Notwithstanding the relevance or weight to be attached to this saved policy, it is patently clear that the importance of the POA in these two respects is now demonstrably different to that existing in 1994. Any importance of this POA land to either the setting of the Listed Buildings or the road approach into the city will have lessened significantly over this period, due in large part to the maturing of the trees and woodland within and around the POA. For example, it is now the mature roadside trees and glimpses of the higher trees and woodland beyond that define the landscape character of the A610 road approach at this location. Given the age of the A610 roadside trees it is apparent that 20 years ago, views into and across the POA would have been possible from the road on embankment. This is no longer the case and even with the proposed development in place, the existing wooded character and impression of the road approach will not undergo any significant change. I consider this in more detail as part of the next key issue.
6.17 Similarly the importance of the site and POA to the setting of the Listed Buildings has changed over this period. This was addressed in the Heritage Impact Appraisal (Iain Smith; January 2012), submitted as part of the planning application. This appraisal advised and concluded;
19 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
“9.4 With the developments in Hempshill Vale and the earlier developments to the south at Nuthall the listed buildings have been left without a clear historical setting. What is seen on the ground in the case of the farm is a group that has little context left , that have been altered and in parts rebuilt to suit new uses and to allow new development to take place around them. The Farm has lost its land, its original form and its original use.
9.5 Hempshill Hall has also lost its place as a manorial estate, becoming in the later 19th century a gentleman’s house. It was separated from the farm by ownership and occupation and its parkland, if it had any, has been lost to agriculture.
9.7 Hempshill Hall has, however, retained its immediate and more formal garden area which effectively screens the house from the remaining open land around it.
9.8 The proposed development does not encroach into this formal garden space and as such it retains that remaining element of setting that is directly associated with the Hall itself.
10.3 The most recent developments around the farm and Hall have, in the case of the farm, virtually severed all connection with the adjacent land and the Hall is now set on the edge of a modern housing estate. This has caused a significant degrading of the wider setting of the Hall but has retained its immediate formal garden area….
10.9 The historic setting of both the hall and the farmhouse have been heavily eroded by these 20th century developments to the extent that both buildings do seem to have lost their original setting and in particular they have lost their original context which cannot be preserved by the retention of 3 small areas of open space.
6.18 The results of the Landscape and Visual Appraisal support the conclusions of this study and it is readily apparent from an on site inspection that the relationship between Hempshill Hall and the site landscape has undoubtedly altered over the years. In visual terms there is now very little intervisibility and in fact the Hall itself is hidden from the vast majority of the site.
6.19 In conclusion, the POA within the site no longer performs an important role in respect of the setting of the listed buildings.
Visual effects upon the road corridors and approaches to/ from the motorway and surrounding properties
6.20 The Committee Report states (at 6.3.2) that the site “is an area which provides visual amenity for the residents to the north and east of the site, those walking beside Low Wood Road and those driving past the site”. It also suggests that timber acoustic fence will “have an adverse visual impact on the Protected Open Area status of the site due to the height and extent of the fence” and that the POA provides “an attractive backdrop for people entering Nottingham along the A610.” Three related issues arise here;
Visual effects of the proposed development upon the surrounding properties and other receptors;
Visual effects and implications of the noise fence
Visual effects for people entering Nottingham along the A610
6.21 The visual effects of the proposed development are summarised earlier in my proof and it is fair to say that the effects will be contained and limited. A very tightly contained Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) will arise from the proposals. With the exception of a few minor breaks in the
20 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
surrounding vegetation, the ZVI will be limited to the immediately surrounding woodland and trees and a few properties on Haise Court. Even views towards the proposed development from the closest properties on Lovell Close, Swigert Close and Anders Drive will be minimal and restricted. The framework of mature woodland and planting around Hempshill Hall will also offer a strong visual barrier and filter to potential views from this property. The vast majority of the residential properties in the areas immediately to the north and east of the site would not have any views towards the proposed development.
6.22 Views from the public footpath that extends through and alongside parts of the site will inevitably change as a result of the proposals. Nevertheless, the overriding visual character of the route between the A610 in the south and A6002 (Low Wood Road) / Apollo Drive to the north will remain dominated by the existing mature trees and landscape planting. More channelled and contained views will occur in places as will clearer views of the new dwellings and streets. The visual change for users of the route will however, only be notable for this limited stretch of the footpath within the site boundary.
6.23 Collectively, there will be no significant or unacceptable visual effects upon existing settlement, properties, public footpaths or other receptors.
6.24 For those people using the A610 and A6002 (Low Wood Road), the two issues raised in the Committee Report are firstly, the effects of the scheme on the existing impression of entering Nottingham City along the A610 and secondly, the effects of the proposed noise fence that will be sited along stretches of these road corridors.
6.25 Turning to the first point, the opportunity to view the site and the proposed development from the A610 approach is extremely limited. The restricted nature of the views of the site is rightly acknowledged (at 6.3.2 of the report) and only a single open view from the south west end of Low Wood Road is identified. At this position there is a very limited and glimpsed view across a small part of the site through a break in the roadside trees and planting.
6.26 The existing approaching view along the A610 includes mature roadside trees and filtered views beyond to the tops of some of the mature woodland and trees, largely sited around Hempshill Hall. This however is only a small part of the approaching view which also includes other mature roadside trees and planting and houses, not to mention the major roads, traffic, roundabout and other urban elements around this location. It would be fair to say that although the visual impression of this road approach does include some mature “green” features, it is still one dominated by the large roundabout junction with connecting major roads, traffic and signage etc.
6.27 The proposed development will not have a significant effect upon this view or impression. The new dwellings are unlikely to be seen at all and the visible existing woodland and trees within and around the site will be retained and still clearly visible. The only material change to the approaching view will be the introduction of a 2.0 metre high timber acoustic fence. This will be sited along the landscape verge of the A610 and A6002 and generally set back alongside the existing planting. Subject to the space available between the fence and the roadside and other necessary technical requirements, hedgerow and/ or climbing plants will be incorporated along the roadside face of the fence. These will include some semi mature “instant” plants which will offer an immediate softening of the new fence. The detailed alignment and design of this feature will be agreed in due course in conjunction with the Highways Authority and other relevant parties. Relevant examples of the type and nature of the fencing and planting to be proposed are included at Appendix 10.
21 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
6.28 The fence and associated planting would not materially change the nature of the views towards the site as it is already very effectively screened and it would not constitute a new significant element or one out of character with its surroundings. This element will have a negligible or minor adverse visual effect upon road or pedestrian users and no material impact on the “Protected Open Area status” of the site as suggested by the Council.
6.29 Properly considered in its context, this is a minor component that will be set along a short stretch of large scale road corridor. It will not obstruct any key or important views and within a very short time frame it would be barely distinguishable.
Impact upon existing trees and woodland areas
6.30 Reason No.2 of the refusal cites the proximity of a number of the proposed gardens to mature trees and the proposed embankments/ criblock walls as “highly likely to have an adverse impact on the future viability of the mature trees on, and adjacent to, the application site”. Further specific observations and comments on the trees are also included in the Committee report at 6.4
6.31 The arboricultural survey and assessment work undertaken as part of the planning application was completed according to current best practice, as contained in “British Standard 5837 (2012) Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations.” Tree Constraints such as crown spread extents (above ground) and calculated Root Protection Areas (below ground) were established and informed the planning layout accordingly through a well considered and iterative process. This led to the design of the housing layout and the operations required to achieve a developable scheme, taking full account of the existing woodland and trees.
6.32 Following the return visit to site the site now has one less tree than originally surveyed as the tree concerned is no longer present (T25) and therefore supports twenty nine individual trees and the eight original groups of trees, with further woodland and trees immediately surrounding the site boundary. During the return visit to site it felt beneficial to collect information on three additional groups of trees not part of the original survey but would need to be discussed in respect of management, hence their inclusion. These groups are XG1, XG2 and XG3 of the updated schedule and plans, Appendix 7 Figure 2. The presence of the additional groups would not have any implications for the design of the layout.
6.33 Having reviewed the details of the Tree Preservation Order, there are several uncertainties as some trees appear no longer to be present in the site yet clearly are recorded and identified in the Order. The submitted Arboricultural Assessment had set out where these discrepancies are. As can be determined, of those trees specified in the tree preservation order covering part of the site that are to be retained eight individual trees and four tree groups exist within the site boundary. The woodlands of the Order are situated outside of the site boundary.
6.34 In devising the proposals for the site, great care has been taken to conserve the character and integrity of the existing woodland and trees both on and adjacent to the site. Surveys and subsequent update surveys and on site assessments of the evolving design proposals have been carried out to ensure that the scheme takes full account of these features.
6.35 The scheme presented to Committee conserved the vast majority of the existing trees and tree groups within the site and took due regard of the surrounding other woodland and trees. I will comment on this further in due course. The scheme resulted in the removal of five individual
22 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
trees and a small portion of one group of trees of which only one of the individual trees are covered by the TPO. The vast majority were however conserved and retained within appropriately sized landscape, open space and garden areas. The trees to be removed will be more than compensated for by the planting of new native trees and structural planting areas. In excess of 70 new individual trees will be planted within suitable locations throughout the development and these will importantly also add to the age diversity and structure of the woodland and trees on site, much of which is reaching over maturity and is beginning to show signs of decline. This new planting, coupled with a comprehensive programme of tree management and remedial operations will offer a valuable short, medium and long term benefit to the trees and woodland. In addition to these trees, other new native hedgerows and structural planting will be undertaken and will extend to the planting of over 2,000 other new plants.
6.36 Notwithstanding the minimal loss of trees and the care and attention paid to those to be conserved in the layout of the proposal presented to Committee, a number of refinements to the scheme have been instigated in specific relation to the woodland and trees as part of the Appeal process. The scheme now avoids any encroachment (from either the built development proposals or necessary earthworks) into the Root Protection Areas (RPA`s) of the conserved trees. The use of criblock retaining wall system is also no longer proposed and instead graded slopes would be formed where necessary, yet still importantly, outside the defined RPA`s. These slopes will generally follow the natural slopes of the site with slope gradients up to a typical maximum range of 1:3 – 1:5.
6.37 The Appeal scheme design changes in relation to the trees can be summarised as follows:
Dwellings removed and layout reconfigured with the road moved away from the existing trees (T27 – T30 and TG4) close the northern boundary in Area 3. Criblock retaining wall omitted with graded slopes used instead. No encroachment into RPA`s;
Dwellings removed in the vicinity of trees T32 – T34 and TG5. Layout modified with road and turning area moved further away from the trees. Criblock retaining wall omitted with reduced slopes now graded instead. No encroachment into RPA`s from buildings and associated earthworks, although there would remain a slight encroachment into the RPA of T32 to facilitate the footpath link through to the end of Lovell Close. This will however be constructed using recognised “no dig” techniques;
Dwelling removed and earthworks revised in the vicinity of Tree T24. Criblock retaining wall omitted with graded slopes used instead. No encroachment into RPA of T24 or T23 at this location;
Garage removed and layout revised in the vicinity of trees T12 and TG2. Criblock retaining wall omitted with graded slopes used instead. No encroachment into RPA`s;
Criblock retaining wall omitted from the northern side of trees T1 – T10 and replaced with graded slopes (approx. level change for slopes 1.5 metres). No encroachment into RPA`s
6.38 In addition to these improvements and following concerns raised by the Tree Officer in relation to some of the tree canopy spreads and heights stated in the original Arboricultural Survey, a review of these has been undertaken using a laser sighted clinometer. The result is a number of minor revisions to the stated dimensions, some up and some down but overall no significant variations have been found. Consequently the original arboricultural survey and assessment work remains robust and valid. (Appendix 7 Figures 1 and 2).
23 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
6.39 The Committee Report makes a number of specific observations and comments which I have addressed below (Paragraph No.s from the Report):
6.4.1 Reference is made to the formation of embankments up to 5.5m high.
6.4.2 makes specific reference to trees within Area 3 and the presence of embankments beneath the canopies of the TPO trees and the use of criblock walls. The design refinements as I have already outlined for the Appeal scheme directly addresses these concerns. In addition, the avoidance of any encroachment beneath the tree canopies or within the RPA`s and the use of graded slopes rather than a criblock retaining wall system will also address the officers stated concerns over tree stability and the drying out of the land. The natural slope of the land within Area 3 is towards the south. The proposed graded slopes would follow these existing characteristics, merely steepening the existing slopes in localised places, yet outside any of the RPA`s. This will not materially alter the nature of the ground conditions or the available natural water supply to any of the conserved trees and similarly will not result in any risk of destabilisation as suggested.
6.4.3 Some of the graded slopes will be located within gardens yet will not result in “largely unusable gardens” as suggested would be the case with the criblock walls and other banks. Notwithstanding that this comment is not substantiated in any way, the slopes outside the RPA`s will typically vary up to a maximum gradient of 1:3 – 1:5 yet will be graded to shallower slopes where space permits. Attractive and useable gardens will be provided to all of the homes.
6.4.4 The measurements have been checked using a laser sighted clinometer and drawings and schedule updated. I would reiterate that the tree survey data is based on sound and accurate field work. The trees in question and measured by the Council`s Tree Officer are not identified.
6.40 The Appeal scheme presents a design that conserves the vast majority of the existing trees and tree groups within the site and positively responds to these and the other surrounding woodland areas and trees. Refinements to the design and layout of the scheme during the Appeal process have further improved the “fit” of the proposals with the site landscape and has resulted in the entire omission of the previously proposed criblock retaining walls and the avoidance of RPA encroachment. Where graded slopes are necessary these are also located outside the RPA`s and tree canopies and there will not be any adverse implications on the stability or viability of the conserved trees in either the short or longer terms. The slopes will maintain a natural surface area over which rain water will continue to percolate.
6.41 During construction, the RPA`s will be protected with tree protective barriers/ fencing to prevent any damage or disturbance and this is entirely consistent with best practice and the British Standard (BS5837: 2012).
6.42 The inclusion of new native tree and other planting and habitat proposals throughout the scheme, coupled with a comprehensive regime of arboricultural management works (including where it can be agreed adjacent woodland areas) will provide a valuable and much needed benefit to the current situation. Improvements to the age structure and diversity of the trees and the long term contribution of the mature trees and woodland to the site will be delivered by the proposals and subject to the detail of the arboricultural management plan.
Implications of the existing trees and woodland areas upon the use and amenity of the proposed gardens and open space
24 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
6.43 The Committee Report raises concern that “several of the proposed houses would have gardens dominated by tall and mature trees” and that “this would undoubtedly lead to pressure in the future from residents of the new dwellings to prune or remove the trees”. The report goes on to state that as many of the trees within the site are protected by Tree Preservation Orders, such requests of this nature from residents are unlikely to be supported by the Council.
6.44 The initial concern is therefore a little baffling as the subsequent statement directly answers the matter. The TPO is the key control mechanism that the Council possesses to exercise their duty to protect public amenity, ensuring that significant and valuable trees for public benefit are retained and managed, thus avoiding adverse impacts or harm. The TPO provides the statutory control to prevent inappropriate tree removals or pruning works. Any requests for work to the protected trees would be subject of an application process and each case should be individually assessed and considered before any consent is granted for such works. The TPO would therefore appropriately and adequately serve to protect the trees from “over pruning or clearances” for works other than that for “sound arboricultural reasons”.
6.45 Notwithstanding this very clear controlling and protection process, the concern for pressure being placed on the trees from new occupants does not take into account any necessary intermediary remedial tree surgery work (to address any tree health issues or dangerous branch material (eg storm damage) prior to occupation. Any such would deemed necessary would be identified by trained professional tree advisors and determined as part of the arboricultural management plan and would be implemented prior occupation, thus either removing or significantly minimising any future perceived pressure.
6.46 It should also be noted that the presence of mature trees close to residential properties is not uncommon and a number of similar situations exist in the nearby vicinity and even adjacent to the site. In any such situations where large trees are in close proximity to housing, there is a suite of tree management measures that can be applied to appease conflicts such as the application of appropriately controlled tree surgery and regular inspection in the interests of safety.
6.47 Furthermore, I consider that the framework of mature trees and surrounding woodland will be form a very distinctive and attractive aspect of both the individual plots and the scheme as a whole.
6.48 The Committee Report goes on to state (as 6.4.5) that “the Council remains to be reassured that the gardens of the properties to the south of Area 2 would not be significantly overshadowed by the trees on the bank beside the A610”. The report considers that the occupants would have a “particularly poor living environment as the properties are north facing, would have gardens subject to overshadowing and overbearing from the trees, that the bank and the elevated A610 and due to being located effectively in a hollow and that the gardens would be likely to be damp, dark and subject to road noise.”
6.49 The A610 is typically sited at 20 – 23 metres from the southern boundary of Area 2 and approximately 6.0 – 6.5 metres above the levels along this boundary. The trees and planting along this embankment are typical of a highway landscape and comprises mixed broadleaf species with tree heights ranging between 8 – 16 metres. The planting forms a continuous belt and acts as a natural buffer between the road and the site.
25 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
6.50 The development proposals have considered the proximity and implications of these and all of the other existing woodland and trees (both on and off site) into account in its design. Rear garden depths for those properties on the southern part of Area 2 are typically 13 - 16 metres. This is sufficient to provide a usable and attractive outdoor environment that will not be subject to an oppressive or overbearing influence from the roadside trees.
6.51 To demonstrate the implications of the woodland and trees both on and off site a shadow path analysis has been undertaken adopting recognised techniques and based upon the detailed topographic survey and surveyed tree heights and canopy spreads. The plans (Appendix 6) illustrate the worst case scenario of solid shadow patterns and have been created using a 3D AutoCAD model. Shadow patterns have been created at three hourly intervals hours: 09.00hrs, 12.00hrs, 15.00hrs and 18.00hrs during June. This is representative of when it can be reasonably expected that the gardens would be in greatest use (height of summer) and when the trees are in full leaf.
6.52 The plans clearly demonstrate that at this time and with the trees in full leaf all of the gardens in this part of the site will receive a good amount of sunlight throughout the day. Whilst it is accepted that due to the juxtaposition of trees to the nearest dwellings there would be some shade cast into the gardens, this would certainly not be considered as “oppressive or overbearing” as suggested in the Committee Report. As the plan shows, the dwellings would have sunlight for the majority of the day. The shadow path analysis plans support the assertion that this matter will not be a significant problem.
6.53 The iterative process that has been followed in the evolvement of the layout has complied with British Standard 5837 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and section 5.2.2 by providing sufficient stand-off distances between retained trees and the dwellings, with good garden lengths as to not result in the housing being completely shaded. In particular the design of the properties along the southern boundary has been undertaken with great care to not only provide generous garden lengths but also to position garages in locations where they would be closest to the crown spread and setting properties at greater distances. Any light gathering rooms have been orientated away from the existing trees also which would serve to reduce the effects of shade cast. The design therefore would lessen pressure for future pruning work to a much reduced level.
6.54 In clause 5.2.4 of British Standard 5837 it recognises under its supporting note to quote directly “The presence of large species trees is increasingly being seen as advantageous, since it contributes to climate change resilience, amongst other benefits”. Occupants may well appreciate some shade during particularly hot summers.
6.55 Additionally in clause 5.3.4 a) Shading of British Standard 5837 it also recognises under its supporting note 1 to quote directly “Shading can be desirable to reduce glare or excessive solar heating, or to provide comfort during hot weather. The combination of shading, wind speed/turbulence reduction and evapo-transpiration effects of trees can be utilised in conjunction with the design of buildings and spaces to provide local microclimatic benefits”. Therefore the retention of trees can have additional benefits beyond those for visually related reasons.
6.56 The development proposals would not therefore necessarily result in an increase pressure for pruning or removal of the tree cover at first occupancy of the housing specifically from the effects of shade as the shade issue is not considered excessive in any part of the layout.
26 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
6.57 In the British Standard it is recognised that trees, especially the retention of large species trees, can be beneficial as highlighted above and therefore whilst it is accepted that trees of larger sizes may cause some concern to residents for reasons of light loss; leaf fall and other “normal” issues commonly associated with trees close to houses, any “perceived” need to prune trees in the case of any trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order there is already a satisfactory statutory control mechanism in place to prevent “inappropriate” tree removals / pruning works.
6.58 A recent appeal decision for a site with TPO lime trees in Abingdon that is considered relevant on this subject and I draw out a point the Inspector gave in his conclusion on the matter of shade, to quote directly: (Appendix 9)
“The appellant’s assessment of sunlight availability at perimeter properties was prepared on the basis of summer conditions. During the winter the shadowing effect of the trees would be less as they are deciduous. The assessment allows for the shadowing effects of trees and the proposed houses. It shows the large part of each rear garden to be in a position to receive direct sunlight for several hours each day”.
“It seems to me possible that there might be a need for limited pruning of some lime and other trees on the site from time to time, but I am not persuaded that this would cause serious harm to protected trees if properly regulated”.
6.59 It would therefore be concluded that the proposals at the appeal site would similarly provide generous gardens away from the boundary where trees would cast shadow, but with the application of appropriate management as described in the following paragraphs, the effects of shade can be kept to a minimum and that it is recognise that the need for some “limited” pruning works in the future may be required, but such works would not be detrimental to the overall visual benefits of the tree cover.
6.60 It should be also recognised that the existing A610 roadside planting alongside this boundary is in need of some active management works. At present, these trees have not been subjected to any formal management to target their long term function or to enhance their value in the landscape. In line with good practice, this maturing planting requires intervention of this nature in the short to medium term. It is the intention of the applicant to fully assess the options for works to improve and enhance these strong landscaped tree corridor for the betterment of the local amenity and continued contribution in the future and to implement these works through suitable agreement(s) with the Highway Authority and through the delivery of a Tree Management Plan to be agreed with the relevant authorities. Appendix 8 includes an outline of the content of such a management plan.
6.61 The management operations would include some thinning of overall tree numbers and selective pruning works to remove lower branches which would seek to improve the overall condition and structure of the planting. The trees have formed tall and etiolated in form devoid of lateral branch development due to their close planting distances and at their current spacing are unlikely to develop further for light levels is restricted. By reducing the overall numbers and increasing the distances between stems this would not only benefit the long term future development of the feature but would have the added advantage of creating a new light pathways through the planting thus improving the overall situation in terms of light gain to the nearest gardens. The continuous and connected nature of the tree belt and its function as a visual buffer and filter between the road and the site would nevertheless still be maintained, as would its contribution in landscape amenity terms.
27 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
6.62 It is the intention that in order to best manage all of the tree cover across the site in line with industry best practice that as already discussed in earlier paragraphs, a specifically written arboricultural management plan will be produced and agreed with all relevant authorities for such purpose.
6.63 In summary, appropriate and adequate protection of the conserved trees does exist and properly applied will deal with any suggested perceived or real “pressure” to prune or fell the retained trees. Additionally, the gardens of the properties in the southern part of Area 2 are of a generous length and properties have good separation from the nearest trees, which will offer an attractive outdoor environment and will not be subject to overshadowing and overbearing from the A610 trees. The agreement and application of an arboricultural management plan will support and implement all of the works.
28 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
7.0 POLICY COMPLIANCE
7.1 The Statement of Common Ground sets out the prevailing Development Plan framework. As a result of the iterative environmental evaluation and design process adopted by the appellant’s team, the application encompasses a highly sustainable compact residential extension which fits logically within a clearly defined and defensible framework. The Masterplan has evolved from a thoroughly researched environmental evidence base and seeks to achieve the optimum design solution based on the site constraints and opportunities.
7.2 Consequently, the proposals prove to be robust when assessed in the light of the cascade of environmental policies extending from the NPPF through to the saved policies of the adopted Broxtowe Local Plan, which can in any event only be given limited weight due to its age and the under provision of housing land supply.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
7.3 The NPPF encompasses a clear commitment to delivering growth in sustainable locations. The Ministerial Foreword starts "The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development". Throughout the document the aspirations are generally positive and there is a marked absence of specific restrictive policies. A holistic approach is encouraged, balancing benefits with impacts across all aspects of the development process.
Core Planning Principles
7.4 Para 17, Bullet 4. The drive for high quality design reflects previous government aspirations to raise design standards. The proposed development will achieve this objective, by way of the strategy outlined in the Design and Access Statement (DAS) and the landscape and environmental principles encapsulated in the Landscape Masterplan.
Bullet 5. From the outset, the “intrinsic character" of the site landscape has been carefully addressed and this has strongly influenced the outcome of the design proposals and the Green Infrastructure provision.
Bullet 9. The proposals will deliver “multiple benefits” with a good proportion of green infrastructure and importantly a commitment to future sympathetic management and enhancement practices
Bullets 11 and 12. The proposals are very well related to the existing urban edge and offer good prospects for transport choice, and will deliver green infrastructure and community benefits for both new and existing residents, fostering an inclusive community.
Requiring Good Design
7.5 This has always been a key objective. The DAS and Landscape Masterplan have been specifically prepared to guide these aspirations, and together with subsequent detailed design work will ensure that the key principles of high quality design are delivered at the Reserved Matters stage.
Promoting Healthy Communities
7.6 The proposals will promote an inclusive community, delivering a mix of new homes together with a green infrastructure framework which will be accessible to all, linking in with the local
29 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
neighbourhood. The new green infrastructure will by its very nature be strongly influenced by the conserved woodland, trees and habitats and be a well used resource combining quieter and more secluded areas with more active ones.
Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment.
7.7 This site is not highly sensitive from an ecological perspective and is not designated for any specific landscape quality reason. It does however, include components and features of local landscape and environmental value that will be retained. The Green Infrastructure proposals will be founded on the conserved trees and woodland, large pond and areas of grassland and will be enhanced to define the “pockets” of built development.
7.8 I conclude that the NPPF design and environmental protection aspirations are taken fully into account by the proposed development. This approach should continue seamlessly should the appeal be allowed through the Reserved Matters planning process, building on the design and environmental principles already established by the Design and Access Statement and accompanying Landscape Masterplan.
Broxtowe Local Plan
7.9 The Broxtowe Local Plan was adopted in 2004. A number of the policies within the plan were saved for a period of three years from 21st September 2007. In line with Para 215 of the NPPF, full weight cannot be given to the saved policies and any weight that is given will depend on the degree of consistency with the NPPF.
7.10 The most relevant “saved” policy to the landscape and arboricultural matters and this appeal is Policy E12 Protected Open Areas. I have addressed the relevant aspects of this policy in the preceding Reasons for Refusal and Key Issues section.
7.11 It appears that there is no sound evidence base to support to this local designation which now dates back almost 20 years and it is clearly not consistent with the NPPF and the requirement that planning policies and decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment (Para 165).
Draft Aligned Broxtowe Core Strategy
7.12 The Draft Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy is in the process of preparation in order to provide for an up to date Development Plan. It includes a number of policies relevant to the site in landscape, environmental and design terms. Of most relevance are;
Policy 10: Designing and Enhancing Local Identity
Policy 16: Green Infrastructure, Parks and Open Space
7.13 The proposed development positively accords with both of these policies. Multi-functional Green Infrastructure areas and corridors will be conserved within the landscape framework of the scheme and will incorporate new access, recreation, ecological, arboricultural, landscape and supporting management measures.
30 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 The site is extremely well defined and contained and is set within a varied urban fringe context. It is not subject to any landscape quality designation and the majority of it is not recognised as part of a defined landscape character area in the 2009 Greater Nottingham Landscape Character Assessment. The site comprises three pasture fields surrounded by and including a mature framework of trees and woodland areas. The latter are of some intrinsic value and sensitivity and are the dominant influences on the site`s character
8.2 The visual envelope (or zone of visual influence) is effectively limited to the immediate perimeter of the site by a combination of the mature planting and localised landform variations including the roadside embankments along the west and south of the site. Very few properties or other receptors have views to even parts of site. The vast majority of existing houses immediately to the north of the site have no views towards it and would not see the proposed development.
8.3 In landscape and visual terms the site forms a logical setting for well planned and designed development, protecting and conserving its mature wooded setting and drawing upon this to create a distinctive and attractive scheme.
8.4 I consider that proposals are compliant with the up to date design and environmental protection elements of the National Planning Policy Framework NPPF and with the emerging Aligned Broxtowe Core Strategy. The “saved” Local Plan Protected Open Areas policy is significantly outdated and lacks any justification or evidence basis. It does not reflect a landscape character based approach.
8.5 Notwithstanding this, its application at this location, which according to the Local Plan is based upon its importance to the setting of the listed buildings and to the road approach into the city, no longer exists. The character, influence and context of the POA have undoubtedly changed over the past 19 years. The road approach is now influenced by the mature roadside trees and larger trees and woodland beyond and the contribution of the POA and the site to the degraded settings of the Listed Buildings is minimal.
8.6 Specific reference is made in the Committee Report to the impact of the timber acoustic fence on the road approach and on the openness and POA status of the site. This is greatly exaggerated. The effect of this feature upon those people approaching the city will be negligible or minor adverse at worst and within a very short time will be barely distinguishable and largely go unnoticed. It will not limit or obstruct any significant or valuable open views and will not lessen the influence of the continuous roadside trees and planting.
8.7 The value and significance of the mature tree stock on site has been rightly considered and addressed by the proposals. From the preparation of a comprehensive arboricultural survey and assessment to the detailed evaluation of levels and earthworks and analysis of tree shadowing. Through refinements to the layout and design, the scheme no longer incorporates any criblock retaining walls and instead includes natural slopes to address level differences around some of the trees. These and any other earthworks and built development proposals will remain outside the defined root protection areas. There will be no adverse implications on the future viability of the mature trees.
8.8 The claims of pressure to clear or prune the trees by future occupants seems to ignore the TPO which covers the majority of the site. A TPO is the right control mechanism to protect the existing trees from any perceived pressure and any requests for subsequent works would be the subject
31 Mr Phil Rech, APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 fpcr
of an application process to the Council. Further to this, the alleged effects of the existing A610 roadside trees on the gardens and living environment of those proposed dwellings in the south of Area 2 is misplaced. The gardens are suitably deep and will receive sunlight throughout the day as depicted on the shadow path analysis.
8.9 In summary, the development strategy concentrates the built development within the 3 fields and conserves the vast majority of the existing trees and tree groups as part of a strong and connected landscape framework that extends around the site. Only one tree covered by the TPO will be removed and this and the small number of other trees to be removed will be more than compensated for by the planting of over 70 new individual trees including some semi mature stock and significantly by the active management of all the site wide trees. The latter will extend to the management of some of the adjoining woodland and trees where this can be agreed. Other new native hedgerow and structural planting will further improve the site wide planting structure with over 2,000 other new plants.
8.10 The existing public footpath route and links will be maintained with new paths added to improve and extend the overall public access and connections within and beyond the site.
8.11 Coupled with the conservation of other habitats on site, including the large pond and provision for public access and recreation, the scheme will deliver some long term environmental benefits. The commitment to a long term management plan for the trees and other habitats will be particularly positive, given the absence of active management and the need for an improved structure to the ageing tree stock.
8.12 In conclusion, I consider that the proposed development;
is very well related to the urban edge and to its immediate context;
will be visually contained with minimal effects beyond it boundary;
respects the existing landscape character and attributes of the site;
includes appropriate measures and stand offs to conserve the existing retained trees and woodland in the short and lone terms;
will include a comprehensive framework of conserved and new landscape and habitat proposals, underpinned by long term management commitment
will deliver a distinctive high quality residential environment in accordance with best practice and “placemaking” approaches;
will not lead to any significant or unacceptable landscape, visual or arboricultural harm
8.13 I therefore respectfully request that the Inspector allows this appeal.
32