South Marston



South Marston Parish Council response to S/OUT/13/1555

Sylvia Brown 30 December 2013

Chair. SMPC Expansion Working Group Sylvia.brown@.uk

South Marston Parish Council has considered in detail the planning application submitted for South Marston and Rowborough. As is acknowledged within the application, the Parish Council has undertaken significant work with the Borough Council, the villagers and the developers over many years to ensure the best possible outcome for the new development at Rowborough and the expanded South Marston.

There is much in the application which, at outline stage, we would not wish to see hard-wired within an outline permission and we have received assurances that we will be able to work with the developers to complete the masterplan for the development subsequent to this consultation and prior to a more detailed submission. We have therefore limited our comments to the major causes for concern where we feel there is conflict with the draft Local Plan and draft South Marston/EV Supplementary Planning Documents. There are also a number of aspects of the background evidence that we believe should be contested because they do not reflect our local knowledge and/or previous technical surveys.

We appreciate that there are advantages to this application being determined within a reasonable time. Should it be recommended for approval, the parish council would wish to see significant caveats over what is agreed, by means of conditions, to ensure that further work on the design codes, street layouts, drainage and community facilities can proceed in an effective manner.

1. We object to the additional land taken for residential building at SM compared with the draft Local Plan and SPDs both in numbers and land allocation. The SPD number of 580 units is predicated on 500 on Developer controlled land and 80 on non-developer controlled land within the EV area. The increase in numbers is not required for ‘sustainability’ at South Marston. Whatever housing numbers are agreed via this outline application, those numbers should be stated as the absolute upper limits, individually set for both South Marston and Rowborough.

2. We object to the link road across the South Marston SPD site which is clearly intended as a potential route for Rowborough traffic, confirmed by the significant roundabout at its junction with OVL and the two road accesses planned to link Rowborough to OVL. We do not accept the developer assertions that the design of the link road, such as restricting the width, would prevent it becoming an A420 by-pass, as assumed by the traffic behaviour modelling. It is clear that the visibility of traffic queues at the Carpenters Arms traffic lights when reaching the junction of the Rowborough roads with Old Vicarage Lane will inevitably serve as an over-riding disincentive to using the A420 to reach Gablecross. The proposal for two Rowborough access roads and the link road together produce an impact of traffic at Gablecross that the Borough Council tested out in early modelling work on the development, and this led to the presumption against any southern by-pass route as a policy in both the draft Local Plan and the draft South Marston SPD. We therefore contest the outputs of the traffic modelling underpinning this proposal.

3. We object to the two roads from Rowborough onto OVL, since it serves as an eventual alternative to the provision of the tunnel access between A420/Rowborough, which could be negotiated out of any future detailed plan. The tunnel access may be expensive, but is essential to connect Rowborough to the A420, District Centre and employment opportunities and to remove rat-running from South Marston roads. If this proposal is simply to aid construction as part of a phasing plan, there are more cost effective solutions available prior to a trigger point being reached with progress at Rowborough. A condition of outline permission should set the trigger point for the railway tunnel at a quantum of housing that is low enough to ensure the completion of Rowborough, rather than leave a half-complete development until finance is available.

4. The application purports to show all the vehicle accesses to different sectors of housing development. It is therefore clear that only one road access/egress is planned from the housing sector closest to Thornhill industrial estate. We understand why it may, at this stage, be necessary to depart from the South Marston SPD indicative plan which promotes an access to this site through the strip of land in other ownership immediately adjacent to Thornhill Road. However, despite control of the relevant land by the applicants, no second access appears to be planned to the east, to connect with other internal village roads which could provide vehicle access to the village centre. We consider the principle of a cul de sac housing sector of this size to be unacceptable on safety grounds. This is also contrary to the South Marston SPD principle of an integrated development which should consider the impact of intra-village vehicle traffic.

The only access road takes vehicle traffic southwards across open countryside to the new link road, and thence onto either Thornhill Rd close to the Keypoint roundabout or across the site eastward to Old Vicarage Lane close to its junction with Rowborough Lane. It is unacceptable that vehicles travelling from this housing sector to the village centre facilities or the school must use either Pound Corner or the congested section of Old Vicarage Lane adjacent to the school. This is contrary to the Local Plan and South Marston SPD principle that the form of development should minimise the impact of traffic on Pound Corner and existing village roads. Furthermore, the new road opens up a significant area of open countryside to further development, unless this land is protected in some other way such as dedication as an extension to the existing Community Forest land at Oxleaze Wood.

5. Drainage: A condition is sought that all building will be within Zone 1 flood risk areas. It is not accepted that the analysis of the flood risk and water courses delivering into the development area is adequate and there are clear issues still to be resolved before a comprehensive drainage plan can be agreed. Please see the Appendix for consideration by the Environment Agency and SBC drainage engineers.

6. Village Centre design: The design of the South Marston village centre and its relationship to the existing and, more particularly, each of the new housing sectors will be critical to the success and sustainability of the expanded village. This is not provided within the developer’s indicative masterplan , yet is a critical factor in the assessment of traffic impact and cannot be left until the detailed application stage. Either revised plans outlining an integrated footpath, cycleway and main street system for the EV, hotel backland and Halcrow land should be agreed or conditions should be imposed ensuring that appropriate accesses must be provided in the detailed application. Road access to the Village Centre facilities and school from the South and West should be possible without relying solely on existing village roads. A condition requiring an integrated footpath, cycleway and street network is required as set out in the draft South Marston SPD.

7. We object to the retention of exclusion from the plans for any proposals on how best to integrate the ‘island’ left at Manor Farm into the new development, including the future of bridleway no. 4 which serves existing dwellings and businesses. In particular, we object to the retention of the Farmyard, which is agricultural and inappropriate in the middle of a housing development. We understand that the Farmyard and relevant parts of the bridleway are within the ownership or control of members of the consortium.

8. The Utilities section in Chapter 14 of the Environmental Statement is inadequate in defining how the proposal is to meet the draft SPD requirement to consider the principle, where possible, of connecting up mains drainage, power and gas supply and rationalising telephone wires. The development site is criss-crossed by waterpipes, power and telephone wires which serve existing housing and businesses. Chapter 14 only tackles disruption to services caused by new connections on developer owner land at the entry to the development site. It does not take account of any disruption or rerouting of existing supplies to properties surrounded by the development site. We believe that, beyond the overall viability of delivering adequate utility supplies to the development site, the detailed provision of utilities should be a reserved matter , not agreed at this outline stage.

9. No relevance has been given in the environmental statements to preserving views of the Downs from either South Marston or Rowborough, which are highly valued. It is unfortunate that these views are not shown by the photos provided, possibly because of the lighting/sun orientation. However, these views provide a strong landscape feature for both new and existing communities and, as confirmed by the draft South Marston SPD, reinforce the principle of the rural feel of the settlement. Whereas the South Marston proposal largely adheres to the green infrastructure corridors that protect those views, Rowborough is not planned in this way, and the green infrastructure is peripheral rather than a central feature which offers landscape views.

10. We emphasise the importance of appropriate trigger points for the provision of infrastructure and facilities at both villages. With particular regard to primary school provision, a condition of outline permission should formally set the trigger point for school provision at a quantum of housing that is low enough to ensure that pupils are able to attend school in their respective villages thus avoiding unnecessary car journeys and pressure on facilities elsewhere. For South Marston School this will mean that the LEA’s expansion programme must be timed to match housing construction.

Appendix to South Marston Parish Council Submission to S/OUT/13/1555: Flood risk

Background information for Environment Agency Consideration:

The description of the origin of South Marston Brook is over simplistic and fails to take account of the system failures revealed by the 2007 event, when 53 houses in the village were flooded. To deal with the water sources in turn:

• Source 1: From the South and West of the Keypoint warehouses: The Keypoint alleviation pond performed well in 2007.

• Source 2: From Kingsdown into the Honda West alleviation pond (SBC responsibility) and then into a culvert under the Honda site, emerging to the South West of the site as shown at 2.20.

• Source 3: Off the Honda site internally into the Honda South alleviation pond as described at 2.20.

Sources 2 and 3 are mentioned in the 1990 Hydraulics Report, which is suitably reassuring. However, in 2007 the waters from Kingsdown overwhelmed the Honda West pond and flooded part of the Honda site. This excess water overfilled the Honda South pond, which went to failsafe and discharged excess water into the channel that joined the water from sources 1. and 2. This in turn overwhelmed the culvert under Greenfields and flooded the centre of the village.

• Source 4: From the South Marston Industrial Estate is collected in an alleviation pond the specification for which we have not been able to find, but it is believed to be below modern standards. In 2007 it probably went to failsafe and flooded properties in Highworth road before joining the main stream close to Chapel Lane. Properties downstream of this junction were then flooded, to include within the proposed development area.

The absence of any analysis of the above leads us to believe that the assumptions as to the flow arriving in the development area in times of flood are unduly sanguine and unreliable.

Village flooding photos – Application Appendices: Flood Risk Scoping Notes :

Although it rained heavily on the day when these photos were taken, this is possibly a 1 in 3 year event rather than anything more. It is certainly not representative of anything like the 2007 event.

We disagree with the comments relating to the Southern part of Old Vicarage Lane e.g. Location 43. We submit that:

I. The fields to the West are above road level. If a connection is made between the road and the ditch as suggested, water will flow onto the road and possibly flood Manor Cottages.

II. The ditches between the brook and the road appear to back up in times of excess rain rather than carrying water away, threatening the dwellings.

III. The culvert under OVL between the Carpenter’s Arms and the railway is below the level of the bottom of the ‘downstream’ ditch.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download