APPENDIX A TO APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE BOREHAM MEAD, WARMINSTER ANALYSIS ON THE SPATIAL SEPARATION BETWEEN WARMINSTER AND BISHOPSTROW AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS ARISING FROM THE PROPOSED BOREHAM MEAD DEVELOPMENT May 2016 INTRODUCTION Application Number 13/06782/OUT for up to 35 custom build residential properties on land adjacent to the Boreham Road was considered by committee in June 2014. The committee resolved to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to cover various matters necessary to mitigate the impact of the development. That agreement was completed and the planning permission issued on 21st January 2015. A third party subsequently challenged the decision to grant planning permission via a Judicial Review. The challenge was heard in the High Court in July 2015 and Judgment was given in October 2015. The JR was advanced on four grounds. Three of these related to planning matters and the remaining one on whether a councilor at the meeting was entitled to vote on the matter. The challenge on planning matters related to (1) a claim that the development would have a significant effect on the River Avon Special Area of conservation because of the risk of contamination to the River Wylye through the specialist foundation works; (2) a claim that the EIA Screening Opinion was flawed; (3) a claim that the Council’s conclusion that the development would not harm heritage assets, such as the Conservation Area, was flawed. The Judge dismissed each of these claims, commenting on the related costs application that the claimant ‘lost badly’ on these grounds. The applicant resubmitted the same scheme for consent but on the 6th April 2016 the application was refused. One of the grounds for which was due to the detrimental effect of coalescence between Warminster and Bishopstrow. The explanation in the reason for refusal was as follows: “….Furthermore, the proposal would result in the development of a site that is currently undeveloped countryside that forms part of the gap between the built-up area of Warminster and the nearby village of Bishopstrow. The Council consider it important to maintain this gap of undeveloped countryside to prevent the coalescence of the town with Bishopstrow, which was one of the objectives behind the setting of the town limits in this location when they were originally defined. The significant alteration in the character and appearance of this area of open countryside through the construction of this unplanned urban development would seriously erode the remaining gap between the town and village and would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Core Policy 51 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy that seeks to maintain the separate identity of settlements. The Council considers that the adverse impact of the loss of a significant part of this gap and the change in the character and appearance of the area that would result from the development of this site significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the proposal”. The applicant HPH Ltd & Hab Housing Limited requested that Sightline Landscape re-assess the issue of coalescence in light of the reason for refusal. The assessment has been undertaken by Chris McDermott, a qualified expert in landscape and visual appraisal with over 25 years of experience, a Chartered Landscape Architect and member of the Landscape Institute. Boreham Mead, Warminster Page 1 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION The Settlement Framework as defined on Inset Map 16 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and is tightly drawn around the urban edge, affording virtually no areas for the urban expansion of the town. It is beyond the scope of this study to determine housing need and provision within the district. This analysis is restricted to an assessment of the perceived landscape and visual effects that would arise as a result of the proposed development, specifically in relation to coalescence between the village of Bishopstrow and Warminster. This issue of coalescence was not raised as a concern when the original application was submitted. Wiltshire Council’s landscape officer made comments on the original scheme and when re- consulted wrote back on the 8th January 2016 that these comments still stand. The original comments were: “I visited the site last summer and it was apparent that the existing riparian vegetation surrounding the site provides a substantial screening effect and creates a strong sense of enclosure. I therefore had limited concern that the landscape and visual effects of the proposed development would have significant or far reaching effects”. In addition, in the REPORT TO THE WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE Settlement Framework Site (for 6th April 2016 meeting) Report No.1 states: Bishopstrow Conservation 9.3 Impact on Bishopstrow Identity/Heritage Assets Area “Officers recognise that some objectors have expressed concern that the proposal would lead to the coalescence of Warminster and Bishopstrow, to the detriment of Village centre Bishopstrow’s identity and independence. The centre of Bishopstrow lies approximately 500m from the junction of Boreham Road and Bishopstrow Road. However, the application site only extends for 50m from the junction down Bishopstrow Road and lies outside the Bishopstrow Conservation Area. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not lead to the erosion of Bishopstrow’s separate identity. Furthermore, the application proposes to retain the existing tree cover around the boundaries and to provide for the establishment of a secondary line of hedgerow and trees in front of the This aerial photograph illustrates how the site lies immediately adjacent to the Settlement Framework and is separated from the buildings. There would also be a landscape and ecological buffer zone of around 10m Bishopstrow Conservation Area by the mill and a consented residential development (currently under construction). The conservation width along the part of the site fronting Bishopstrow Road. area is large and encompasses greenspace which provides the setting to the village centre. “In addition, the existing riparian vegetation surrounding the site provides a substantial screening effect and creates a strong sense of enclosure. The landscape and visual effects of the proposed development would not be significant or far reaching. Indeed, the submitted Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment demonstrates that the visual effect would be limited and localised. The site lies outside of the Bishopstrow Conservation Area but is considered to be within its setting. It is noted that neither English Heritage nor the Council’s Conservation Officer object to the proposal”. Boreham Mead, Warminster Page 2 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION Officers recommended that the same set of conditions as originally imposed should be set, should the committee be minded to grant consent. Conditions 11 and 13 are relevant because they set the extent of the buffer around the perimeter of the Site and make provisions for its long term management. This is significant because they will result in a green buffer around the Site which exceeds the buffer shown on the illustrated masterplan which was prepared prior to these conditions arising. This plan was drawn up using dimensions from the edge of the water, not top of bank, the extra width of the bank increases the width of the buffer significantly. The enlarged buffer will further ensure that the perceived separation between Warminster and Bishopstrow will remain and the required management plan will ensure that it achieves these objectives. The two relevant conditions are: 11. Prior to commencement of the development, a scheme to maintain and enhance the River Avon SAC as agreed with the Environment Agency and Natural England shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme will demonstrate the works to be undertaken within 8 metres of the river and ditches to enhance existing habitats and support the wider programme of river restoration works being promoted by the Environment Agency. It will also include details of a water quality monitoring programme that has been agreed with the Environment Agency. The works will be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme. REASON: In the interests of maintaining the ecological interest of the River Wylye corridor and River Avon system SSSI. 13. Following the approval of a future reserved matters application, all new development shall lie solely within Flood Zone 1 (sequential approach). In addition, irrespective of the extent of the Flood Zones, there shall be no development within 8 metres of the top of the bank of 'main' river (River Wylye) and no development within 4 metres of the top of bank of 'ordinary' watercourses. Provision shall be made for [controlled] vehicular access route(s) to these 'no development' areas / wider 'main' river and 'ordinary' watercourse corridors. REASON: To provide riparian owner access to facilitate maintenance The proposed planning conditions will result in an increase in the and possible future improvements. width of the perimeter buffer zone to that shown on the illustrative masterplan, minimising further the perception of coalescence. The enlarged buffer arises because the banks are wide. The distance between the top of the bank and the Boreham Road is approximately 10 m, giving a minimum buffer of 14 m (since it is an Ordinary Water Course). To the east the bank of the Wylye varies between 4- 7m giving a buffer of between