Sturry Parish Council response to CA/20/02826

Application CA/20/02826 Land at Sturry: Sturry Parish Council response to Section 6 of the developer’s Planning Statement
1
Application CA/20/02826:
Sturry Parish Council wish to make the following comments on Section 6 of Developer’s Planning Statement.

Reason 1 for Refusal “ The Planning Committee determined that the proposed development exceeds national average densities and therefore would appear over-dense and an overdevelopment of the site, and as such would not result in high quality design. The development is therefore contrary to policy DBE3 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017”.

The developer has disagreed with this reason for refusal, has challenged the validity of DBE3 and referred to such guidance on densities as supports his case.
As stated in the Planning Statement densities can appear arbitrary, and national and other non-site specific averages will not necessarily be definitive in determining an appropriate density for individual sites. In considering what the appropriate response on density for this site should be it is clear that 630 dwellings on this site represent a significant over development.

Policy SP3 provides for 1,000 dwelling on Site 2, 550 on the land at Sturry. 630 home represents an increase of almost 15% on the policy requirement and is excessive. This needs to considered also in the context of site constraints such as the developable area of the site, only 42%, topography, the proposed under-provision of policy compliant public open space and insufficient space allowed for community buildings (see ps5 and 7). DBE3. e. states
“The distinctive character, diversity and quality of the Canterbury District will be promoted, protected and enhanced through high quality, sustainable inclusive design, which reinforces and positively contributes to its local context creating attractive, inspiring and safe places.
Proposals for the development, which are of a high quality design, will be granted planning permission having regard to other plan policies and the following considerations:
a. The character, setting and context of the site and the way the development is integrated into the landscape;
b. The conservation, integration, extension, connection and management of existing natural and historic features including trees, hedgerows, pathways and boundaries to strengthen local distinctiveness, character, habitats and biodiversity;
c. The visual impact including the impact on local townscape character and landscape and the skyline;
d. High quality design solutions appropriate to the site;
e. The form and density of the development including: the efficient use of land, layout, landscape, density and mix, building heights, scale, massing, materials, finishing and architectural details including proposed lighting schemes;
f. The provision of visually interesting frontages at street level;
g. The privacy and amenity of neighbouring buildings and future occupiers (including overshadowing, outlook and light);
h. The provision of appropriate hard and soft landscaping;
i. The impact of polluting elements, such as noise, dust, odour, light, vibration and air pollution from the development or neighbouring uses;
j. The provision of appropriate amenity and open space;
k. The safe movement of pedestrians, cyclists and cars within and around the proposed development;
Almost every part of this policy is breached by the proposal, over development of the site is the single highest contributor to the scheme being unacceptable and is the design fault from which almost all other faults flow.

In conjunction to DBE3 we need also to consider that the Sturry site is within the Stour Valley area of High Landscape Value and as such policy LBE2. d. also applies
“Canterbury (the valley of the River Stour around Canterbury).
Within these areas, development will be considered in relation to the extent to which its location, scale, design and materials would impact on or protect the local landscape character and enhance the future appearance of the designated landscape and its heritage and nature conservation interest. Development proposals that support the landscape character (including settlement character), and have no significant impact upon historic setting, archaeological or nature conservation interests, where relevant, will be permitted. Within the Canterbury AHLV, development proposals should have particular regard to the historic setting of the City and the World Heritage Site.”
The Landscape assessment and landscape impact of this proposal is discussed more fully in the parish council’s full response to application CA/20/02826). It is patently obvious that this proposal does not support the landscape character of the area and the settlement character is out of keeping with the area designation and that “the extent to which its location, scale, design and materials would impact on or protect the local landscape character and enhance the future appearance of the designated landscape” has not been objectively considered. Again, it is over development of the site that is the greatest obstacle to achieving an acceptable landscape character. This is contrary to NPPF170.
“Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan);
b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;”

Reason 2 for Refusal
“The Planning Committee determined that the division of the site by the proposed Sturry Link Road would result in poor layout and lack of connectivity within the site that would be contrary to policy DPE3 of the Canterbury Local Plan 2017”.
The developer disagrees with this reason by:

giving all the reasons why the Link Road has to be where it is, none of which negate the fact that it is a very significant barrier to pedestrian permeability
trying to insist that it is very little different to a local distributor road as required by the Kent Design Guide.
“For a residential development of 650 dwellings, the Kent Design Guide would require a minimum of two points of access to a development site connected by a local distributor road. The design parameters of the Sturry Link Road and a typical local distributor road are almost identical, such that this road layout would be provided, regardless of the “link” function of the road in this instance.”

This comparison of the Link Road to the design of distributor road is therefore deliberately misleading, according to the Guide a distributor road would only require two entrance/exit points which could be from Sturry Hill and the bottom of Shalloak Road and would not require the connection to the A28 or the associated viaduct. The constraints on the alignment of a distributor road would therefore be significantly fewer. Also, and most significantly, is that similarities in construction between a distributor road and the Link Road are immaterial to the severance caused. The impairment to permeability is the result of its function. A distributor road for this size of development would be expected to carry 7,000 to 8,000 vehicle trips per day at most and would be relatively quiet for long periods of the day and night. Traffic predictions for the
Link Road show that it will carry 4 to 5 times this much traffic and will be difficult to cross except where there is a controlled pedestrian crossing (only one is provided) and its close environment will be sufficiently unpleasant as to deter both pedestrians and cyclists from its immediate vicinity. This needs to be compared to the existing unpleasant walking environment beside the A28 and A291, which is about half as bad as that created by the new Link Road.
The refusal is therefore justified by DBE3 due to
“i. The impact of polluting elements, such as noise, dust, odour, light, vibration and air pollution from the development or neighbouring uses;”
and its impact on
“k. The safe movement of pedestrians, cyclists and cars within and around the proposed development; “
and by DBE5
“The City Council will require developments to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion. Developers should ensure that developments:
a. Can be used and accessed safely and easily by all;
b. Are convenient, welcoming and enjoyable to use independently without special treatment;
c. Are flexible and responsive so that people can use them in different ways;
d. Are realistic and recognise that one solution may not work for all.
e. Can be adapted to the changing needs of users and environmental conditions. “

Reason for Refusal 3
“The Planning Committee determined that there would be a lack of useable open space available for future residents of the development and as such contrary to policy OS11 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017”.

The developer, in Section 6 of the Planning Statement claims not to know what this means when a moderately articulate ten year old would be able to explain it. We ask whether any member of Canterbury’s Planning Committee has ever seen, in any printed statement in any developer’s submission, such a revealing admission of incompetence! Both the NPPF and the Local Plan have numerous policies and supporting statements that collectively define quality and usability of public open space. Brevity requires that they are not all quoted here but a selection has been included in the policy schedule at the end of this document. Collectively they set the qualitative tests for usability and fitness for purpose of public open space. A very brief summary would be that public open space must be accessible, safe, manageable and meet a community’s needs.
i. Accessibility relates to distance, exclusion though physical obstacles, disability, psychological obstacles such as fear over personal safety arising from sense of isolation and lack of friendly presence.
ii. Safety relates to physical hazards and the personal security afforded by passive surveillance.
iii. Manageable relates to the cost and ease with which it can be kept in a condition appropriate to its use and environmental and social functions.
iv. A community needs in relation to physical exercise, contact with nature, opportunities for social intercourse, opportunities for safe children’s play (which is not confined to formal playgrounds) the provision of a tangible neighbourhood focus, place for events and a positive impact on the streets and neighbourhood environment.
Almost all of the open space provided in this proposal demonstrates multiple failures when held up against these tests.

The quantity of open space required by the Local Plan has been recalculated to take account of the 20 fewer dwellings in this proposal. The developers proposed open space has been scrutinised against the tests above.
It is also noted that in order for the whole of Site 2 to meet Local Plan quantitative standards some of the open space needed to meet the requirements of the Broad Oak proposal in CA/18/02868 will need to be provided on the Sturry site. The calculation of Local Plan Requirements for the 630 proposed dwellings on the Sturry Site does not take this into account and as such the amount of land, by typology, required to make up the shortfall in Broad Oak must be either added to Local Plan requirements for Sturry or deducted from the developer’s calculation for provision for 630 homes.
Our calculation of the useable open space actually provided deducts the land in lieu of provision at Broad Oak from the developer’s calculation. The full calculation is set out in Sturry Parish Council’s full response to CA/20/02826 (see pdf below) A summary only is given here

It should be noted that the whole of the sports areas has been deducted. As yet there is no agreement from KCC Education that the school site will be available for public use nor is there any contingency off-site contribution secured from the developer.
We also wish to point out that one of the grounds for refusal of the Hillborough application was that the open space had been used to accommodate SUDS. This is also the case at Sturry (and Broad Oak) and the SUDS areas have therefor been included in the area of land deducted.

Reason for Refusal 4
“The Planning Committee determined that the development would result in inadequate protection of ancient woodland as a result of its use by future residents of the development and would result in deterioration of the ancient woodland contrary to policies LB8 and LB10 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017”.

Policies LB8 and LB10 re intended to provide protection for sensitive habitats such as ancient woodland. The key feature of ancient woodland is the very long timescale needed for its development and it is site-bound so that habitat translocation and restoration work following damage are not options for mitigation of any adverse impacts of development. This especially so as a defining feature of ancient woodland is its sensitive ground flora and soil ecology. These are quickly damaged by disturbance.
It follows then that damage to both flora and fauna will be a serious risk from adjacent development and once done will be impossible to rectify as the source of the disturbance will be permanent. There are two questions that must be asked before compliance or otherwise with LB8 and LB10 can be determined
Will the measures proposed be sufficient to guarantee protection of the woodland and its important flora and fauna?
If successful, will the effectiveness of these measures be guaranteed to endure for the lifetime of the threat? In the context of housing development this means in perpetuity.
If there is any doubt that these guarantees can be given then there is non- compliance with the policies. We have been given assurances on the grounds that the 15m minimum buffer required by Natural England has been provided and the Ecology and Woodland Management Plan contains actions aimed at protection and improved management of the woodland. Very real issues which have not been mentioned or taken into accountare:
The incentives for unauthorised use of the woodland
a. Lack of sufficient other opportunities to ride BMX and mountain bikes and motrorised bikes and engagement in the more adventurous play activities – making camps, lighting fires etc..
b. The ease with which the fences and hedges can be broken down
c. The lack of surveillance over the woodland edge allowing breaches of the fencing to go unobserved, leading to both destructive activities, encroachment and flytipping.
d. The cost of patrolling the woodland and taking action against offenders and repairing fences. The cost of which will need to be borne by residents
e. The lack of legal authority of the management company to take sanctions against offenders.
f. Whether police resources will be sufficient to apprehend and take action against offenders.
Whether the promised beneficial management (ie, rotational coppicing) can be sustained in the face of there being no economic return. The cost of management operations will need to be met by residents
The willingness of residents to meet all these costs.

On related issue – Den Grove Wood also has a critically small population of dormouse which is a nationally endangered species.
The Environmental Statement (ES7.1 . 7.92) acknowledges that
“7.92 Dormouse is afforded full legislative protection by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and is recognised as a priority species and a Kent BAP species. Furthermore the on-site population is potentially maintaining a historic link in the distribution of dormice across the Blean landscape network.”
Dormice, like the woodland ground flora are vulnerable to disturbance and especially so over the winter when they hibernate on the woodland floor under a loose covering of leaf litter, moss etc.
The impact of inevitable predation by domestic cats on the very vulnerable dormice is mentioned in the developers Environmental Statement which promises that the impact will not be significant due to the provision of the woodland buffer zone. We would like to point out that of the two locations where the presence of dormice has been confirmed one is within a hedgerow that will be entirely removed and replaced with housing and the other is at the very edge of secondary woodland immediately behind dwellings and where no buffer zone is being provided. The dormouse population is therefore likely to
be entirely wiped out. This contrary to Policies BDE3, LBE9….etc.. And UK wildlife legislation.
There are no laws or enforcement action that can be taken against householders that allow their cats to run free in the woodland.
Reason for Refusal 5
“The applicant has failed to provide affordable housing”.
The developer defends this position by reference to policy HD2. This Local Plan policy allows a developer to omit affordable housing on viability grounds. The NPPF covers affordable housing in para 64 where it is made clear that planning authorities should expect a minimum of 10% on major sites and there is no exception made for viability. The provision of 0% affordable housing is therefore contrary to NPPF64.
Further, doubts must be cast over the acceptance of the viability appraisal in respect of development cost. This is discussed in more detail in the Parish Council’s full response to C/20/02826. At this point we raise the concern that there is conflict with Government guidance over the impact land price on delivery of Local Plan policies such that even with 0% housing and 15% overdevelopment the scheme cannot be both viable and policy compliant.
Reason for refusal 6
“The Planning Committee determined that large parts of the site are unsuitable for development because of contamination from lead shot and no report, with adequate site investigation information prepared by a competent person and is therefore contrary to policy DBE3 and QL12 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017”.
in relation to lead contamination over the area of Greenfields shooting ground the developer’s Environmental statement, ES11.2, confirms that:
“03 The site investigations carried out in 2016, 2017 and 2018 indicated widespread significantly elevated soil and potentially leachable Lead and hydrocarbon concentrations in surficial soils across the areas investigated in Greenfields Shooting Grounds which will be remediated where practicable.”
The Outline Remediation Strategy for Land at Sturry, Canterbury Kent prepared by Ecologia further confirms:

“7.2.1 To date site investigation works have comprised a very limited scope intended to inform baseline assessment and surficial extent of contamination associated with the Greenfields shooting range. Further site investigation works will be required as part of any detailed development proposals and a Detailed Planning Application/s.”
The planning context for contaminated land is given by NPPF 121:
“The role of the planning system is to control future development and land use. After remediation and under planning, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990”
Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act gives its definition of contaminated land as where there is:
• a contaminant source;
• a receptor; and,
• a pathway that might result in significant harm, or the significant possibility thereof, being caused to the receptor by the contaminant.
The Outline Remediation Strategy prepared by Ecologia draws on existing site investigations and intended land use to prepare the outline strategy. There is no suggestion that the investigation so far is inadequate for this stage or that it has not been done by a competent person. The Remediation Strategy includes an appraisal of remedial options an implementation strategy that potentially could remove its status as contaminated land. It is, however, obvious from the strategy that considerable further investigation will be needed at the detailed stage. In addition the Strategy does not include any appraisal of economic or social feasibility of the available options for this site. The viability appraisal provided by Savills UK Ltd.in 2019 for CA/17/01383 includes a cost of £1,844,305 for remediation of contamination. There appears to be policy compliance in so much as the Outline Remediation Strategy has been provided as a basis for Remediation to be carried forward to the Detailed stage as a reserve matter. There remains a question over whether sufficient financial provision has been made to avoid compromising other developer obligations which would in turn lead to non-compliance with other policies.

Reason for Refusal 7
“The Planning Committee determined that there would be a lack of adequate local healthcare provision contrary to policy QL8 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017”.

An off-site contribution for health care of £544,320 is sought by the NHS for refurbishment, reconfiguration and/or extension of primary care facilities within the Canterbury North PCN.
There is no confirmation within the submission documents available to the public that this has been agreed with the developer. Failure to secure this sum via a Section 106 (or other appropriate agreement) will constitute a breach of QL8.
We are disappointed that this provision is not being made in Sturry and introducing a requirement for residents of Sturry to travel to Northgate to see a doctor. We would prefer to see a new or extended surgery within Sturry and consider this a reasonable request given the future population of the parish. We note that the letter from the NHS requiring this payment there is a request that the funding agreement “Allows the contribution to be used towards new general practice premises in the area serving this population (should GP Estates Strategy identify future requirement) and not just limited to the practices detailed above.”
We object to such an agreement on the grounds that the contributions towards healthcare are to provide for residents of the development at Sturry and should be used to extend facilities at the nearest available site.