10 Gravel Pits Close
Bredon
Tewkesbury
Glos
GL20 7QL
2 April 2014
Ms Emma Worley
Planning Department
Wychavon District Council
Civic Centre
Queen Elizabeth Drive
Pershore
Worcs
WR10 1PT
Dear Ms Worley
Planning Application No W/13/02545/PN
Erection of 6 dwellings at the rear of Gravel Pits Close, Bredon
We write with reference to the above application for residential development.
Our property is adjacent to the site and we write to formally register our strong objections
to the application. The reasons for our objections are contained in the attached
statement.
We are aware that many objections have been made to the application and we would
strongly urge you to refer this application to the Planning Committee. As far as we are
aware, this request is supported by the District Councillor for the area, Cllr A. Hardman.
In your consideration of the application, we would welcome the opportunity to invite you
to our property to enable you to assess the significant impact the proposals would have
on our ability to enjoy the amenities we have had for so long. We would be able to
demonstrate, on site, the nature of our objections and indicate the deliberate role the
area of land has performed for over 30 years as a landscaped buffer between industrial
and residential developments.
As residents of the area, we would urge you to recommend refusal to the Planning
Committee as this is an ill conceived opportunistic application attempting to take
advantage of the current national government pressure on locally elected politicians to
grant applications, even if they are inappropriate. Similarly, we would encourage the
Planning Committee to make a decision that they consider right in planning terms and
support the residents of their communities and Parish Council in their rejection of the
application.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like to discuss this matter or visit our
property.
To assist you, we will also electronically submit this documentation.
Yours Sincerely
Chris Pike
07771 505219
Linda Pike
This Statement contains the objections of Mr C Pike and Mrs L Pike of 10 Gravel
Pits Close, Bredon, against the planning application reference number
W/13/02545/PN for 6 dwellings, with relocation of existing garage to No 6 Gravel
Pits Close to facilitate a new vehicular and pedestrian access.
1. Introduction
For the purposes of this statement I have considered three aspects as follows:



The Area of land – which is more extensive then the development site but is
an area that has already been developed
The Site design – which relates to the site itself
Detail design – mainly concerns plots 5 and 6.
The figures are contained in the appendix.
2. Area of land
2.1. The area of land to which I refer is as shown in Figure 1. It is bounded by the
telephone exchange to the north, the residential development to the east and
south and the Station Drive Business Park to the west. It includes the site for the
proposed development but extends beyond it to the south. The Design
Statement refers to this land as “a redundant area”, “unkempt” and “waste land”
which could not be further from the truth.
2.2. The land has been fully developed and has served, for over 30 years, as an
area which has very effectively provided a buffer between both the residential
and industrial developments. It is the result of good practice from the
professional planning officers and carefully drafted planning permissions in the
late 1970s. It has served its strategic and important role in the development of
that area allowing the residential and industrial uses of land to exist in harmony.
That need still exists. The strategic value of the area has been consistently
recognised through subsequent planning permissions for extensions to the
Business Park. Planning permissions 00/01408 and 05/02241 both contain
conditions that require the developer to extend the tree planting. This fully
recognises the strategic role and value the land plays in the local environment of
this area. The wanton desecration of the trees does not change its strategic role
in any way but highlights the value and amenity it provided, and will continue to
provide when reinstated.
2.3. The land is not “redundant” or “waste land”, neither has it been “unkempt” until
very recently. The area has been the subject of much change over recent years.
For a long period of time the conifer trees were allowed to grow unmanaged but
1
through pressure from local residents, the land owners lopped the tops of the
trees on a number of occasions. Figure 2 shows the area before the trees were
removed; Figure.3 shows the same view today and Figure 4 shows the density
of trees at the rear of the garage that is to be removed. The owners approached
the residents to suggest that the trees were thinned to enable easier
maintenance. In the spirit of neighbourliness, this was agreed but with the
absolute insistence that the outer rows remained. Subsequent to this being
done, the row against the rear fences of the houses was removed and then in
October 2012, the last row was removed. In the meantime the grass and
undergrowth was regularly cut and maintained. Following the removal of the last
row of trees, the owners wrote to one resident informing them that a hornbeam
hedge would be planted. This, again, was done but not maintained and whilst
there is some remaining, a substantial part of the hedge has died. Until recently
the land has been maintained and is not “unkempt”.
2.4. The trees on the area provided a great amenity providing some great benefits as
follows:
2.4.1. As a densely planted area the trees provided a noise barrier not only from
the industrial estate but from the railway line and motorway. The noise
nuisance from the night working in some of the fabricating companies is
worst in the summer time when doors and windows are open and has
been the subject of complaints. I have requested the history of noise
complaints but, as a Freedom of Information Act request, I have not
received the details. The noise is worse since the trees have been
removed. The noise survey submitted by the developer was taken on a
calm day in February and is not indicative of the noise levels experienced
by the residents. This is highlighted by your Environmental Health Officers
comments (email 20 March 2014) warning of the potential for nuisance
complaints not only from the business units but also from the railway.
2.4.2. The trees served as an excellent visual screen. From the west the trees
framed the industrial units identifying the land usage and completely
hiding the houses. From the east, the existing developments on the west
side of the railway could not be seen. The proposed areas of land
identified in the local development plan for residential development to the
west of the railway also cannot be seen. Figures 5 to 10 compare the
current stark views of the developments with the time when the trees were
in place. The soft strategic landscaping served this purpose excellently.
The desecration of the trees has destroyed the carefully planned
environment.
2.4.3. The Village Design Statement (VDS) states that “In Bredon, it is of
particular importance that any future development takes account of
wildlife priorities...” (5.1.5). The tree belt provided an excellent habitat for
wildlife. It was abundant with birds and small mammals. There is also
2
good evidence of slow worms living there which are a protected species
under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). The amenity
this provided was a material fact in the purchase of my house and I have
received pleasure from it for almost 30 years before the area was
desecrated.
2.5. The VDS states that there is a “lack of employment opportunities in the village”
(4.3b) and that there are “few employment opportunities relative to its large
working-age population” (3.12). It also states that the “VDS sees the retention of
the business park at Station Drive as a key priority, and would be supportive of
any efforts to modernise and upgrade these facilities” (5.8). The Parish Council
considers that the provision of employment is vital in establishing a sustainable
community. This area of land is the only opportunity to fulfil that objective and
the previously approved planning applications would have used the land to
extend the units.
2.6. The VDS criticises the building of residential developments on employment land
stating “...the development of the former Bredon Garage site into housing
(Brensham Court), against the wishes of the community, is to be particularly
lamented” (5.8) and goes on to say “Learning from the mistakes of the past, any
future proposals to reduce the supply of employment sites should be considered
very carefully. There should be a presumption against converting employment
sites to residential uses, and this should only be permitted where an overall
benefit to the community can be clearly demonstrated.” (5.8).
2.7. The residential development of that land will lose the only opportunity to create
additional employment in the centre of the village enabling the business park to
thrive through the provision of varied business opportunities in a central location,
significantly contributing to the sustainability of the community.
3. The site design
3.1. The site is not appropriate for residential development. The Residential Design
Guide (RDG) uses phrases such as “New development needs to be sensitive to
its surroundings” (1.2), “Raise the standard of residential design through
development that enhances the local character” (1.8), “improving the public
realm with access to outdoor spaces and by protecting private amenity” (1.8),
and “Respect the environment through development that enhances and protects
the districts biodiversity” (1.8). The development proposal does none of those
nor will it be able too.
3.2. The RDG also correctly justifies its existence by stating “Without detailed,
relevant justification, those proposals for development which do not reflect the
guidelines set down in this document are unlikely to be acceptable to the
Council”(1.12). It also references PPS 1 – good design and sustainability, and
3
PPS3 – Positively contributing to making places better for people. The proposal
does not reflect the contents of these documents. It is opportunistically
bludgeoning the planning process utilising pressures placed on democratically
elected bodies by national government to approve applications – even
inappropriate applications – which then become a burden on the community and
its finances.
3.3. The site is located on one of the most prominent and highest pieces of land in
the village. Unfortunately, no ground levels or building floor levels are available
so a full analysis cannot be done. Figure 11 shows the height of the proposed
houses in relation to the existing buildings. It should also be compared with
figures 9 and 10. Those houses will be very visible from the west and there is no
opportunity for soft landscaping to screen them. They will appear to be built
upon the existing business park units. This is certainly not “sensitive to the
surroundings” and is low quality design.
3.4. The site is higher than the existing houses. The Design Statement suggests that
very little earth will be removed from the site which suggests the floor levels of
the properties will be up to 1m above the existing houses which will not be
reflected in the height of the fences. This will invade the privacy of the existing
properties and reduce their enjoyment of their amenity.
3.5. The density is 50% higher than in the immediate vicinity. The VDS states that
“housing remains at low densities compared with urban areas” (3.6.1). The site
will not support higher densities than currently exist and achieve high quality
design. The immediate impression looking at the design layout is that it is a
good example of urban cramming and that it is grossly over developed.
3.6. The site isn’t wide enough to accept the buildings. Plots 1 and 5 will require land
to be created within the 4m “moat” that bounds the west side of the site. Since
the removal of the trees, that bank has become unstable and figure 12 shows
evidence of bank failure at the top of the bank. The small retaining wall at its
base is deforming as shown in figure 13, which also shows the slump in the
bank. The bank is criss-crossed with the roots from the trees and with their
removal the roots will lose their strength, rot and the bank will fail. The angle of
the bank along the whole length of the site is naturally unsustainable without
reinforcement.
3.7. The proposed method of disposal of surface water is to soakaways. On a flat
site, that would work effectively but in this case the introduction of water into the
substrata will lubricate the slip plane and hasten the failure of the bank. A
connection to the public surface water sewerage system must be made a
condition of any permission to prevent bank failure.
3.8. The proposed method of land creation is to use gabion baskets. As a
construction engineer with experience of using gabions I know they are a
4
deformable retention method designed to move and find equilibrium with the
ground they are retaining. They are not suitable as the sole method of retention
of land on which permanent structures are to be built.
3.9. Whilst the potential for bank failure is not a planning matter, it supports the fact
that the site is not appropriate for this type of development without creating
serious ground failure problems in the future.
3.10. The depth of the bank is 4m (not 3m as stated in the Design Statement). Figures
13 and 14 indicate the height and nature of the bank. The development of the
site leaves 50% of this bank unprotected. The bank is un-climbable and is a
major health and safety risk to residents and especially children. Where fencing
is provided it is on the very edge of the bank and is likely to fail due to lack of
post support or is built on the gabions which are likely to deform over time.
3.11. The properties are small semi detached 3 bedroom houses when the existing
properties are all 4 bedroom houses. They are not a mix of 3 and 4 bedroom
houses as stated.
3.12. The design of the houses is totally out of keeping with the area. They are
reminiscent of beachside/marina type properties and do not complement the
existing properties. The shiplap boarding does not reflect any design in the area
in style or colour.
3.13. The RDG states “Smaller infill schemes provide the opportunity to add to the
character and quality of an area and further enhance the context and setting”
(3.27). The approach to the development is aesthetically of very low design
quality when the RDG and all other local and national design documents call for
high quality design. To access the site people will go between a garage and a
high brick wall, with no view of the properties, and be faced with the stark walls
of the rear of the business units. From Gravel Pits Close it will look like the car
park to a garage block - certainly not high quality design and innovation.
3.14. Within the development there is no opportunity for significant landscaping to
replace the landscaping which the area previously supported. The starkness of
the approach cannot be masked. The RDG states “..it is also important to
consider landscape features and where necessary provide buffers to protect
existing habitats and features of importance” (4.14). The RDG also states
“Housing development in Wychavon needs to respond to and respect the natural
environment. The environment is a valuable and fragile resource that needs to
be considered sensitively when planning and designing both large and small
residential schemes” (4.16). This was very effectively and successfully achieved
in the late 1970’s with the requirement for strategic planting and that standard
should not be lowered by this development.
5
3.15. The highway gives me great concern. The access road is not to be adopted as a
public highway yet the design statement suggests low maintenance. Block
paving by its nature is high maintenance. The paviors are bound together with
sand and this, mixed with silt from the road is a perfect medium for weeds. The
weeds are suppressed where vehicles travel over them but only in the wheel
tracks. When the weeds grow, who will deal with them? The properties are
sufficiently remote from the parking areas for the residents to neglect them. This
design approach does not deal with the issue of future regular maintenance.
3.16. The area will not be cleansed by the local authority because it is not a public
space nor is it attached to any property. Who will cleanse it of litter? The road
sweeping vehicle visits Gravel Pits Close once every 3 months but it will not go
into the development. Once the developer leaves it will be left to deteriorate. The
property owners will be responsible but who will cleanse it? It threatens the high
quality environment currently enjoyed and maintained by the residents.
3.17. This also affects waste collection. The collection vehicles should not go onto
private land. I have experience of running local authority waste collection fleets
and I know the issues they face. If they do go onto block paved areas, the
weight of the vehicle will damage the surface. This is evident in many locations
and the local authority is saddled with the repair bill. So the alternative is to stay
on the public highway. The Wychavon website states... “Your collections will be
from the boundary of your property, nearest the public highway”. Where is the
boundary of the property? Do the waste collectors have to walk to the bin store?
If that is to be the point of collection, they will get the vehicle as close to the bins
as they can and they will damage the surface. The Council will face a claim for
damages. Again, an example of design with no concern for future maintenance.
3.18. Alternatively, if they residents bring the bins to the edge of their property, there
will be in excess of 30 wheeled bins stacked at the existing edge to the public
highway. This will block the access to many of the properties. Figure 15 is a
photograph of the current situation on waste collection day.
3.19. The logic for not having the highway adopted is ill considered and creates
problems that will cause neighbour disputes in the future. The access must be
adopted and maintained at public expense.
3.20. Gravel Pits Close suffers badly from insufficient car parking. Residents already
have problems accessing and egressing their driveways. Despite an additional
14 parking spaces being provided, in reality they will be taken by the
development residents and additional pressure will be placed on the space in
the existing estate road for visitors. Figures 16 to 18 show the congestion
already experienced by residents and visitors to Gravel Pits Close.
3.21. Gravel Pits Close contains a 90o bend which is dangerous when the road has
cars parked on it. Residents do park half on the road and half on the footway but
6
nevertheless cars have been damaged recently. This will be greatly heightened
during construction with large vehicles going to and from the site. The
introduction of a road junction 10m from the apex of the bend will severely
threaten the safety of traffic in road.
4. The detail design
4.1. The following objections relate to the design and are appropriate if the
application is considered to be worthy of approval. They primarily relate to plots
5 and 6.
4.2. The two houses give every impression on the layout plan of being shoehorned
into an area which is not capable of supporting them. They are located in a
narrow corridor of land between high fences and the back of some industrial
units. The land has to be artificially made wider to make them fit and plot 5 will
be bordered by a 4m almost vertical drop with a partially unfenced boundary.
4.3. The two units have been pushed too far south in the strip. They could be placed
6m further north and be more part of the development. This position is not
dictated by the access to the site as stated in the Design Statement. It is
dictated by the need to facilitate a land swap which is not a good design or
planning reason for their position. Figure 19 shows the position of the proposed
house taken from the rear wall of the house at No. 10 Gravel Pits Close.
4.4. The Design Statement states that the rear gardens of the houses are 14 -19m
deep to the rear elevations. The closest existing house to the site boundary is
4.5m and the furthest is 14m. The nearest habitable room window to a gable
wall will be 10.0m (as measured on site) at No. 10 which is substantially below
the standard of 13m stated in the Design Statement. The Design Statement is, I
suggest, intentionally misleading in its statements. The position of the property
will cast shadow into habitable rooms on the ground floor of that property.
4.5. The layout shows that the edge of the bank south of the proposed rear fence to
plots 5 and 6 to be 11.5m from the eastern boundary of the site (my fence). It
measures on the site to be 10.7m. In the rear gardens the edge of the bank is
shown as 12m. It is not possible to widen the land without extending the
retaining structures. As mentioned earlier the bank is currently unstable. The
distances shown on the plan are wrong and must be verified on site to establish
whether the block of houses can physically be fitted on the site.
4.6. The Design Statement states “The site has a clear aspect to the west looking
right over the roofs of the units to Station Drive”. This is totally untrue. The
ground floor will have only a view of the rear walls and roofs of the industrial
units and will be totally hemmed in. The ridge height of the business units is
approximately 3.5m above existing ground levels.
7
4.7. The rear gardens will be overlooked by Nos. 10 and 12 Gravel Pits Close and
they will have no privacy. The amenity of the back gardens to Nos. 10 and 12
will be overlooked by plots 5 and 6. The existing properties have a right to that
amenity and the development should not threaten it. In addition I estimate that
the floor levels of the properties will be up to 1m higher than the existing
properties, further threatening the amenity of privacy.
4.8. The rear elevations of the properties show full length opening windows and
Juliet balconies. These will enable the occupiers to stand almost out of their
properties and look into the rear gardens of Nos. 10 and 12. This again
threatens the amenity of privacy currently enjoyed.
4.9. The position of plots 5 and 6 are alongside 2 large extractor fan outlets which
have caused serious odour problems in the past. These are clearly shown on
Figure 3 but more clearly shown in Figure 20. These will threaten their air quality
and lead to complaints because the prevailing wind will blow any odours in their
direction.
5. Summary and conclusion
5.1. The application proposes development on an area of land that:

Is already developed as a strategic landscaping area that has effectively
enabled residential and industrial developments to live in harmony for
more than 30 years.

Provides the only opportunity for increasing the centrally located
employment opportunities and meet the national agenda for
sustainability.

Created definition in the landscape and the local environment.

Provided a wild life haven in the centre of a developed area supporting a
slow worm habitat.
5.2. The development does not confirm with the requirements of the Village Design
Statement adopted by Wychavon District Council or the Residential Design
Guide.
5.3. The site is not capable of supporting a development of this size and nature.
5.4. The design is of low quality and totally out of keeping with the local environment.
8
5.5. The development does not contribute or enhance the local area.
5.6. The development will significantly worsen the current traffic and parking
problems.
5.7. The position of plots 5 and 6 threatens the amenities of privacy, light and space
currently enjoyed by 10 Gravel Pits Close.
5.8. The unguarded 4m bank will threaten the health and safety of any residents or
visitors.
5.9. In conclusion the development is opportunistically bludgeoning the planning
process utilising pressures placed on democratically elected bodies by national
government to approve applications – even inappropriate applications – which
then become a burden on the community and its finances. We urge the
Councillors to make a decision on proper planning grounds taking into account
the wishes of the residents and Parish Council who are the guardians of their
community. This is an ill conceived and totally inappropriate application. We
object on the grounds stated in this statement and urge the Council to refuse
planning permission on this and any other similar application on this site.
5.10. Further, we urge the Council to work with the land owners to reinstate the
landscaping and bring harmony back to area that existed for in excess of 30
years.
9
Appendix 1 – Figures
Figure 1 – Area of land at the rear of the Station Drive Business Park
Figure 2 – View from 10 Gravel Pits Close
before the trees were removed
10
Figure 3 - View today from 10 Gravel Pits Close
Figure 4 – Showing density of trees before removal
Figure 5 - View of Station Drive from the west in
north easterly direction before the trees were
removed
11
Figure 6 - View of Station Drive from the west in
north easterly direction after the trees were
removed
Figure 7 - View of southern end of Station Drive
from the west in north easterly direction before
the trees were removed
Figure 8 - View of southern end of Station Drive
from the west in north easterly direction after the
trees were removed
12
Figure 9 - View of northern end of Station Drive from
the west in an easterly direction before the trees were
removed
Figure 10 - View of northern end of Station Drive
from the west in an easterly direction after the trees
were removed
13
Figure 11 – Proposed house on Northern end of site
as seen from the west. See figs 9 and 10.
Figure 12 – Slip scar on the top of the bank at
the rear of 10 Gravel Pits Close
14
Figure 13 – Showing the deformed wall and bank slump.
Figure 14 – Indication of height of bank.
15
Figure 15 – Existing bins out for collection
Figure 16 – Parking 3 deep in Gravel Pits Close
Figure 17 – Parking in Gravel Pits Close
16
Figure 18 Parking at the entrance to Gravel Pits
Close
Figure 19 – Position of proposed dwelling at rear of 10
Gravel Pits Close taken from rear wall of property.
17
Figure 20 – Extractor vents on the business units roof.
18