Response to Landscape Environment Team – consultation response dated 29th October
2015
Following a review of the above consultation response, and telephone conversation with
Andrew Sharland on 2nd November 2011, this note clarifies areas of confusion and
responds to areas of objection.
The numbering below relates to the numbering within the consultation response.
Point 1: There is ambiguity (between text and Connections & Movements Plan) over whether
pedestrian routes form part of the Green Infrastructure route. The Connections &
Movements Plan appears to show the pedestrian route following beside the green space
along the section occupied by the Public Rights of Way south from Staunton Lane rather
than within the green space. I would not be happy if the route was not an integral part of the
Green Infrastructure.
There are a couple of areas of presentation that will be amended following discussions with
Andrew, which remove the above concern:
The retention of the existing PROW has not been shown on the Connections & Movements
Plan (it appears that a ‘layer’ must have been switched off the final plan) and needs to be
added back in so that it is accurate and conforms with the detail on the Green Infrastructure
Plan (which has a detailed annotation confirming the PROW retention), the sections on the
Illustrative Green Infrastructure Plan – showing Illustrative Sections and the information
within the Design Principles document.
The ‘Green Infrastructure links connecting the green corridors’ on the Green Infrastructure
Plan and the Illustrative Green Infrastructure Plan – showing Illustrative Sections are shown
as a red dotted line. This has led to some confusion with the ‘Pedestrian Connections’
shown on the Connections and Movements Plan, which also appear as a red dotted line.
The colour of the dotted line for the ‘Green Infrastructure links connecting the green
corridors’ will be amended to avoid confusion, and the key will be amended to make clear
that those dotted lines are showing landscape/ecology GI corridors, not pedestrian routes.
Point 2: There is a desire from the landscape officer for houses to front onto the hedge, with
open space between.
The approach to Sleep Lane was considered within pages 19 – 21 of the Design Principles
document that accompanied the latest Masterplan submission. This highlights that a
solution with dwellings backing onto Sleep Lane (with a maintenance corridor between) was
agreed with officers through a previous application on the HorseWorld site, and the
Masterplan accords with that solution.
However, further commentary is provided below in respect of the various elements that
support the arrangement included within the latest Masterplan layout.
Ecology
The primary purpose of the corridor is to retain the hedgerow to support bat flight paths
along this secondary route to provide a connection between the bat roost and the open
countryside to the south, while ensuring that it is a dark corridor. A footpath and dwellings
fronting this space will impact on the dark corridor, unless there is a significant off-set (as
proposed on the main north-south GI route). A significant off-set would result in significant
land take, impacting on the ability to deliver an appropriate level of dwellings on this
allocated site.
Levels Change along Sleep Lane and revised block structure
The levels within the site and the existing levels along sleep lane cause complexities in
delivering a footpath to the east of the Sleep Lane hedgerow. There is a 2m road level
difference between the new proposed roundabout on Sleep Lane and the first of the retained
farmyard buildings as you travel north. The Levels along Sleep lane stay low from the new
proposed roundabout, rising only once they approach the farmyard. With the required
Finished Floor Levels and attenuation pond level within the site there is a need for up to a
2m retaining wall along the Sleep Lane alignment. There is a proposed retaining wall along
the rear of the North-South block backing onto Sleep Lane, and this needs to be off-set by
2m-3m to ensure that there is no conflict with root protection areas.
With the intention to retain the existing hedges and trees along Sleep Lane creating the GI
corridor, a proposed footpath would need to be behind this tree line, due to lack of width of
sleep lane for a 2m footpath.
Placing the footpath behind the tree line and beside the retaining wall would create a dark
and unwelcoming space that would potentially be little used due to lack of overlooking and
any active frontage. With this space providing a bat corridor south from the farmyard,
lighting the path, as it would need to be, would be at odds with its intended ecological
intention.
Placing the footpath on top of the retaining wall would firstly detach it from Sleep lane,
secondly would require the block structure at this point to rotate to face the path and
requiring a 5-6m offset from the retaining wall to house frontages. This will push the block
structure further into the site and will create the need for rear parking and rear fences facing
the site road. To preclude this situation this revised block structure would need to be a backto-back plot depth with courtyard parking to the units facing Sleep Lane, and thus pushing
the site road much further east into the site.
Pedestrian Desire Line
With the retention of the farm buildings there are limited options for access points into
Staunton Manor Farm. The only obvious access from the Bellway site is at a point between
two of the retained buildings, and a private vehicular/pedestrian access is proposed.
The location of the proposed pedestrian link connecting the Bellway site to the western part
of the Staunton Manor Farm development, together with the position of the vehicular access
onto Sleep Lane, has created a natural desire line for pedestrians. This broadly accords
with the proposed alignment of the north-south estate road which runs parallel to Sleep
Lane, offering direct views for pedestrians approaching Staunton Manor Farm. This
reinforces the historic link between the farm and the farmyard.
Placing the footpath along sleep lane will lose the desire line and visual connection to the
farm buildings, while realignment of the block structure will cause the current natural desire
line to be lost by pushing the site road much further east and away from the farm access
point (to accommodate the off-set from Sleep Lane and the two unit plot depth).
Rural Character
Retaining a rural character along Sleep Lane is a key part of the Horseworld proposal. By
placing a footpath along this edge and potentially turning the plots here to face it will disturb
this rural character. We propose to enhance this green corridor with new planting to
reinforce what is currently there. With houses backing onto this space no lighting will be
required and gardens on top of the retaining wall will encourage new residents to add and
reinforce the green corridor. With the intension for this space to be a corridor for wildlife
especially bats it makes sense to lessen the need along this edge for lighting and activity to
retain the rural feel from Sleep Lane.
Cross section of current Masterplan layout
Maintenance area
The root protection area of the hedgerow/trees is protected by the off-set of the retaining
wall. It also provides sufficient space for adequate maintenance, and the detail of
maintenance proposals (including removal of any unwanted materials) can be the subject of
a detailed maintenance regime secured through a planning permission.
Point 3: There is a desire from the landscape officer for the pedestrian route south to Queen
Charlton Lane to follow the hedgerow, and not cut back along the estate road.
Barratt’s representatives have been asked to provide a response to this matter.
Point 4: The farm buildings are not seen as having the same level of detail as the rest of the
Masterplan site.
Staunton Manor Farm will not have the level of Green Infrastructure as the wider allocation
because it represents a previously developed area with a number of retained buildings (as
illustrated on the Masterplan) and hard standing. However, detailed proposals, including
hard and soft landscaping are being worked up and a request will be made for Whitecroft to
engage with the Landscape Environment Team to ensure that the details are acceptable.