Planning Applications Reference:18/01516/REG04

Further Information on this property is available on the Council's My House web page.

View Further Information
Type of Application:Regulation 4 Application
Status:Pending Consideration
Address of Proposal:Land To The Rear Of 89 To123, Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath,
Ward:Odd Down
Proposal:Development of 37 residential dwellings (Use Class C3, including affordable housing), vehicular and pedestrian access, open space, landscaping, drainage, related infrastructure and engineering works.
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-06747395
Applicant Name:Bath & North East Somerset Council
Agent Name:Lichfields
Agent Address:Mr Tristan Dewhurst, The Quorum, Bond Street, Bristol, BS1 3AE
Case Officer Name:Tessa Hampden
Date Application Received:05/04/2018
Date Application Validated:05/04/2018
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:09/04/2018
Standard Consultations sent on:10/07/2018
Last advertised on:12/04/2018
Latest Site Notice posted on:24/04/2018
Expiry Date for Consultation :15/05/2018
Target Decision Date05/07/2018

Documents

ConstraintsAgric Land Class 3b,4,5, Article 4 Bath Demolition Wall, Article 4 HMO, Article 4 Reg 7: Estate Agent, Conservation Area, LLFA - Flood Risk Management, MOD Safeguarded Areas, Policy B4 WHS - Boundary, Policy B4 WHS - Indicative Extent, Policy CP9 Affordable Housing Zones, Policy GDS1 Site Allocations, Policy NE2A Landscapes and the green set, Policy NE3 Local Nature Reserve, Policy NE5 Ecological Networks, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones
Related Property:Land To The Rear Of 89 To123,Englishcombe Lane,Southdown,Bath,
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
18/01516/REG04 .Development of 37 residential dwellings (Use Class C3, including affordable housing), vehicular and pedestrian access, open space, landscaping, drainage, related infrastructure and engineering works.05/04/2018Pending Consideration

The Comments tab lists all public comments received on this application (not statutory consultees, e.g. The Environment Agency, Highways DC, etc). The majority of comments are submitted via our Comments Form through the website and you can expand the comment to view all of the text by clicking on the plus button. A minority of comments are submitted by post or email and it is not possible to include all the text here, however when you expand the comment you will see a link to our Associated Documents page where you can search for the comment.


Name Address Comment type Comment1 Comment2 Comment3 Date
Ginny And Colin Stokes 101 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O 14/05/2018: Proposed development to rear of 89-123 Englishcombe Lane, bath REF 18/01516/REG04

With regard to earlier objections to the proposal of development of 37 dwellings and all infrastructure work concerning the build.

1. The access road to the suite is not suitable for 2 lane traffic if this is not achieved and is reduced to a single lane access road because of lack of width at the initial entrance of englishcombe Lane this will create a serious problem at peak times I.e 7.30-9 morning rush hour and 3-4.30 afternoon being the approx times If 1 car per household of 37 departs the development during these periods. As well as school children going and returning from school there will be a gridlock scenario and increasing risk of accidents.
2. There are various springs in the field which have been identified in your plan, I believe you have underestimated the volume of the work generated by the springs which will be channelled into a French drain , in theory this is fine but during a wet spell of weather this drain will fill up quickly. Where will the overflow water flow to? Obviously downhill to the gardens directly behind the French drain, will the council be responsible for any damage caused by an ingress of water to our property’s?
3. The fact the council owns the field and has created its own development company to oversee the build it will be put before the councils planning committee I understand there is a councillor involved in the development company and also sits on the planning committee. Is this the proper way to do things? corrupt & conflict of interest springs to mind.
4. Since the proposed planning consultation was proposed in 2017 the whole procedure has been a shambles, you have gone back to the drawing board and come up with a new scheme in 2018, the 2017 application showed a footpath from englishcombe Lane to this site between houses 121-123, in the new scheme 2018 it was taken out, now I understand it has been restored, at the viewing at st barnabus church where all plans were on show. We conversed with your people and they assured us that the footpath is omitted. Now it’s back in? Who can you trust. One word sums up the whole escapade. AMATEURISH!

14/05/2018
Hannah Needham 122 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EJ O 14/05/2018: There are many reasons why the proposed planning application should not be allowed to go ahead.

Firstly, as someone who wrote to the council to register interest, no information has been given on proceedings of this application. An information evening arranged for the community was cancelled without a replacement evening.

One of my greatest concerns is the conflict of interest that seems to surround the application. It has come to my attention that particular council members have a vested interest in planning success due to their links with the development company. The only correct course of action is for all areas of the application to be reviewed independently with public access to the resulting findings.

My children attend the local primary school and walk each day through the park. It can easily be observed that there are natural springs running through the park coming from green sites higher up - including the proposed site. Increased building will only see the problem increasing and an already wet area at a higher risk of more regular flooding (including impacting the surrounding residential properties).

The increase in traffic puts my children and many others in increased danger. The 20mph restriction is already proving to be inefficient at controlling the speed of vehicles using Englishcombe Lane. It is already unsafe and the speed enforcement team are often set up to try and make the area safe by reducing the speed of drivers. More houses will mean more traffic and vehicles and the situation will get worse.

The style and height of the housing directly changes the skyline of Bath - something that is key to the World Heritage Status. With many residents on the same road being refused planning permission from the council for an in - keeping side dormer, it would show biase for a new housing development on the very same road to be granted permission.

14/05/2018
Andrew And Angela Allan 1 Blacksmith Close, Springfield, Chelmsford, CM1 6SY, O 17/04/2018: We are writing on behalf of Mrs Eileen Moody, (Mrs Allan's mother) who owns 32 Stirtingale Avenue, a property that borders the proposed development. The development will place a significant number of new properties within a confined area that it out of keeping with the surrounding area. The plans place new builds adjacent to Mrs Moody's property on a higher elevation reducing her privacy and those of the surrounding properties. The access point is onto a busy junction that has restricted views of approaching traffic with its attendant risks. For these reasons, the appeal should be refused. 17/04/2018
Richard And Margaret Cartwright 89 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O 10/05/2018: Planning Applications Reference:18/01516/REG04

Objections from 89 Englshcombe Lane

DRAINAGE

We have concerns as to the proposal for the drainage of the site. It is not clear as to how the drainage systems shown will help the North Eastern end of the site since the catchment seems to concentrate on the main spring and the central section of the site.
Our experience over the past 38 years is that water has been known to spring up in the North East corner of the field during the wet months. This has resulted in varying levels of moisture in the garden of our property and the volume of water flowing down the track over the years.
We are concerned that there is the possibility of this water flowing into No.89 through our Southern border unless adequate drainage is planned to cope with this ground water plus that caused by the proposed new houses, roadways, hard-standings and car parking areas.

Please note:- The amount of water shed by this field in heavy rain has contributed to the flooding of Englishcombe Lane on occasions.

The drainage proposals concentrate in stabilising the ground for the new properties but little thought seems to be given to the effect that the new drainage system may have on the grounds and foundations of the existing properties on the Northern edge of the site where any alteration in the moisture content of the clay sub soil could effect these long established properties.

SIDE GATE ACCESS

We objection in the strongest terms to the fact that the side entrance gate from No.89 on to the lane does not appear to be shown on proposed layout.
The gateway is clearly shown on the Drawing – Existing Site Survey No.900101.
However it is not shown on the Landscape Plan No.065-001_P3. This shows a continuous 1.8m high Featherboard Fence along the side of our property.

This gateway has been in existence for a very long time and was a feature on the property deeds at the time of purchase in 1980.
Please reinstate the gateway together with sufficient safety allowance between the gate and the roadway.

POSSIBLE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO No.89

If this proposal should go ahead we are fearful of the possibility of damage being caused to our property with the construction of the roadway and the heavy duty equipment that will be passing close to the house during the time of the construction work. We trust you will bear this in mind.

WORKS EQUIPMENT, TEMPORARY OFFICE and STAFF FACILITIES

If the plans for this site are approved we would object to any of the above features/facilities being positioned directly behind our garden. The field is at a higher level to our garden. This could lead to the possibility of leakage of noxious liquids, dust and dirt from building materials spilling into our property.
Also we would object to Portakabins being positioned close to our Southern border causing our property to be overlooked.


R & M Cartwright
10/05/2018
E Button Not Given O 10/05/2018: I object to this proposal 10/05/2018
Gill Dodd 119 Coronation Avenue, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2JX O 10/05/2018: Wildlife will be affected detrimentally and I have grave concerns for traffic increase and road safety. 10/05/2018
Peter Clinick 19 Faulkland Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3LS O 10/05/2018: I object to this application,too many houses,very few suitable/affordable for local people,the promises have been made by previous applications then reneged on (Ensleigh/ Bath High school site) and the penalty to the applicant were less than the profits made. Use the 'brown field sites' not green spaces.Especially this one. 10/05/2018
Penny Gallagher 65 The Oval, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2HD O 10/05/2018: I am amazed that anyone would think of building on this hillside which is boggy land full of springs and very steep and best suited to be what it is, rough grazing and a wonderful wildlife habitat. After heavy rain it regularly floods right across Englishcombe Lane at the bottom. Drainage would be impossible to guarantee as springs are unpredictable and water will find its own path, presumably threatening the existing houses on the road with flooding and/or subsidence. Apparently the residents of Stirtingale Farm have not been properly consulted, although the integrity of their land would be severely affected. There are several mistakes in the information about the application which indicate that they have been written by people who have no knowledge of the area & may not even have visited the site.

As for the idea of putting upwards of another 80 vehicles on to Englishcombe Lane, near a primary school and the Baskerville building, it will destroy the peace and safety of one more small corner of Bath, to provide a very limited number of social housing units, while presumably making lots of money for certain people.

I gather that one member of the developers' company is also on the Planning Committee, is this correct? If so, it is obviously a conflict of interest. Also it is concerning that work has begun on the site before the application has been passed.

There seems to be a lot of concern about how this would look from Royal Crescent, perhaps more importance should be given to the effects on the lives and property of the council tax payers in the immediate vicinity!
10/05/2018
Joanne Hall 21 Dartmouth Avenue, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AS O 10/05/2018: The development is taking much needed Green space in this beautiful city which is already being heavily impacted by the continued construction of yet more student accommodation. It is home to many species of wildlife and plant life which are increasingly being destroyed by other developments.
Another application very near to this site was rejected due to the fact that it would be taking away a couple of metres of green space along the stretch of the building and the potential of increased traffic flow along Englishcombe Lane. Clearly this application would be destroying a very large amount of green space and also creating extra traffic flow along Englishcombe Lane.

I wholeheartedly reject this application based on the above comments, and the impact it will have on the current residents of Englishcombe Lane who benefit from having green space to use knowing that many of the residents have children, or older people who like to use.
10/05/2018
Julia McIntyre 70 Moorfields Road, Moorlands, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2HP O 10/05/2018: I will always object to any further loss of open space and wildlife habitat. These are precious resources and once gone can never be replaced 10/05/2018
Emma Comley 115 Hillcrest Drive, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1HE O 10/05/2018: The area is so densely populated. We need to keep some open space. Not increase traffic etc 10/05/2018
Frances And Jonathan Tecks 94 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EJ O Documents Tab 14/05/2018 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
Penny Graham 48 Frenchfield Road, Peasedown St. John, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 8SL O 13/05/2018: I object to this development, Bath needs to keep its lungs. We can’t keep building on every patch of land until we can’t move or breath. 13/05/2018
Mary Radley 1 Maesydre , St Dogmaels, Cardigan, SA43 3LD O 13/05/2018: I often visit and stay in a property on Englishcombe Lane.The property backs on to the beautiful land in question,a site of SSI.I live in rural Wales,but when staying with my family in Englishcombe Lane I have seen a variety of wildlife in the woods behind the property ,and also in the garden.I have seen deer,foxes,badgers,squirrels hedgehogs and many species of birds on a regular basis.This is a wonderful environment for wildlife and natural trees and plants to thrive on the edge of a busy city.I consider the planning application to be insensitive to the needs of the wildlife as it would totally destroy them and their wild I recognise the need for more housing-especially social housing but consider there are many areas in the more built up parts of Bath that would suit this development better and have no impact on our important and vulnerable wild spaces.I notice the application includes 'affordable' houses-who sets the price for these or is it just a way to get planning permission through?I am disappointed that BANES is even considering this application in view of the wonderful-and special environment it will destroy,I would have expected BANES to be keen to keep these special places going to ensure protection of wildlife and the wild environment and increasing pollution which Bath already suffers from.Trees play a very important part in reducing carbon monoxide in the atmosphere and yet the proposed development would involve felling many trees and the increased traffic and buildings to the area would create even more pollution . I would ask you to reject this application as it would destroy an important natural habitat and would only benefit the developers and be detrimental to all who live in the area-including the wildlife. 13/05/2018
Jody Radley 83 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O 13/05/2018: I fully object to the proposed plans on the following grounds:
1.) Wildlife- This area is full of wildlife which includes protected species such as badgers, bats etc. It lays next to a SSSI and has badger sets on the boundaries. You can not just pick them up and move them to another area.
2.) Natural springs- These are vital for the wildlife to survive, yet you are draining them and re routing,which could in turn cause flooding to existing properties and Moorlands school. The school has already experienced flooding of a severe nature and thankfully no Children were in school at the time.
3.) Increased traffic on an already saturated road. As a resident I struggle to get out of my drive in the mornings due to the volume of traffic. Children walk to school along this road and need to cross, this will increase the risk to them. There has already been a death on the road.
4.) The amount of houses on the proposed development is insane! They are too close to the existing properties and I don't believe that proposed plans fit within guidelines for distance. Some have balconies that look directly into existing houses, this is an invasion of privacy.
In no way do the proposed buildings fit within the local area. This is right on the border of a conservation area where only bath stone and slate can be used, yet the plan is for wooden cladding and red tiles. These building will be and eye sore on the landscape.
5.) Finally I am disgusted to find that the building company Aequus Developments Ltd is 100% owned by Banes. I am also shocked to discover that a director of the building company Cllr Les Kew will be sitting on the planning committee.
This is a total conflict of interest and one which I am sure the press would be interested to learn about.
I suggest an independent committee be used to asses this planning application.
13/05/2018
Bath Preservation Trust 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR R 03/05/2018: Comment: The Trust finds this application broadly satisfactory (given that the principle of development on this land has been established). We have some observations on the scheme as follows:
• The site plans looks to be reasonably well laid and spaced out which is commendable but we would comment that the success of the assimilation of this scheme will rest with the effectiveness and quality of the landscaping and tree planting, especially to allow the scheme to blend into the urban townscape in long views
• We do observe however that individual house gardens are quite small compared to the garden character suburb of the surrounding area.
• It has been difficult in wading through the information on the application to get a proper visual understanding of the scheme; contextual 3D street or aerial views would be useful to see how the individual housing types sit together as a whole scheme and how they integrate with the surrounding housing.
• Similarly we welcome the provision of LVIA’s but a series of photomontages would have been useful to understand how the scheme would appear on the hillside in long views.
• We have some reservations about the elevational treatment of the houses; not only does there appear to be a lack of reference to local character design-wise but we question the extensive use of timber cladding. This is not a material seen in large quantities in Bath’s urban areas and we are not convinced it is appropriate in the context of an urban extension as this is, rather than a rural scheme. The use of buff brick is becoming more prevalent in housing applications, and we are concerned that its use is again not contextually relevant or appropriate given the surrounding area is largely built in Bath stone ashlar. Departing from the materials palette in this conservation area would potentially fail to retain or enhance local distinctiveness. The use of clay roof tiles is also of concern given that if they are a bright red colour they will stand out on the hillside until they weather which could take some time. We would recommend the use of a pre-patinated clay tile to ensure that the scheme would not be built out with a highly visible red roofscape.
In conclusion we find the scheme to be broadly acceptable but we feel the architects should reconsider aspects of the design and materials in relation to contextual character and provide more 3D visuals so that the scheme can be better understood and analysed in context.
03/05/2018
Ron And Cathy Mould 1 Stirtingale Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2NF O 14/05/2018: We wish to register our objection to the planning application regarding the land at the rear of 89/123 Englishcombe Lane.
Having read the numerous documents relating to this project and all the objections from the neighbouring community, we are in total agreement that the field is one of immense ecological importance and should not be developed.
The setting up of the fencing to relocate the wildlife seems rather premature but am concerned as to why the damaged fencing was not repaired since the wildlife was of such importance.
With regard to the pathway we feel we must object. The reinstatement of the pathway would create an easy escape access for burglars and also increase unruly behaviour in the area.

Drainage has to be one of the main factors of concern in this proposed development but nowhere has there been any reassurance or substantiated evidence that the houses in a Englishcombe Lane will not be affected by the diversion of the springs.
There has been much concern regarding the skyline view from BA1 but no thought has been given to the awful impact this development will have on

the residents that surround the proposed development. Bath Preservation Trust have commented on the length of the proposed gardens in the development. With the gardens being so short this means that the proposed houses will impede on the privacy of the residents in Stirtingale Road and we find this unacceptable.
We therefore believe that this development should not go ahead in any form.


14/05/2018
Jackie And Nick Pethick Stirtingale Farm, Corston View, Bloomfield, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2PJ O 30/04/2018: Dear Sir/Madam,

We live at Stirtingale Farm, our land is adjacent to the proposed development.

We are very angry that our objection to the original planning does not seem to have been recorded.

We were on holiday for the first consultation and only received notification on our return.

We wished to attend the second consultation, but we were subsequently notified that it had been cancelled.

Since then we have not been notified of an alternative date for this consultation, yet it seems from other comments that it has taken place.

We have also not received the relevant notices of the new planning application and have only been alerted to this by a neighbour.

I believe that this now means you must extend the consultation period due to incorrect notification.


We wish to object to the above proposal on the following grounds:

Our animals run free in our fields adjacent to your proposed development.

Your proposal to build 37 homes backing onto our land will cause us a constant headache with people wandering into our fields, leaving gates open etc.

The buffer zone you mention is merely leaving the hedgerow as it is, this will not stop people or their pets wandering onto our land.

This is not adequate.



Drainage of this land is also a major issue, it has been a problem for years. Several attempts have been made to install land drainage that works. The last attempt was a few years ago. We allowed the horses from that field to graze our land whilst the work was in progress. Contractors were on site for approx 8 weeks and at the end of that time the land was as waterlogged as before the work commenced.

There is an issue with springs as well as surface water, unlike surface water springs can move, therefore what is adequate drainage one week maybe totally inadequate the next.

If you build on this land you will be causing problems for the surrounding houses - the water will have to go somewhere.

Also it is quite evident from our fields that this whole area is subject to slippage and settlement due to the springs and boggy nature of the land, this could also have a major impact on existing properties

Nick & Jackie Pethick





Regards

Nick & Jackie Pethick
30/04/2018
Stephanie Danns 7 Stirtingale Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2NF O 19/04/2018: The size of the piece of land can not accommodate that many houses. I am all for new housing and would prefer it to be affordable housing as Bath has such a shortage, but far too many houses proposed. Where would the access be? Quite dangerous for the amount of cars pulling out onto englishcombe lane. I notice people who live there now and have drives, have to be cautious pulling onto road. 19/04/2018
Soraya And Nicholas Hall 5 Stirtingale Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2NF O 14/05/2018: With reference to Planning Application 18/01516/REG04, Planning Reference 06747395, we are writing to object to the proposal to develop the land behind the properties on Stirtingale Road and Englishcombe Lane (no.s 89-123).

We moved into Stirtingale Road 28 years ago and were informed that there were proposals in place for development of the field behind our house. Many times these were rejected due to the following reasons:

- Drainage was not considered appropriate for construction of any kind because the land was boggy and unstable
- Negative impact on the local ecology including deer, bats, slowworms, badgers and foxes
- The impact such a development would have on local residents and their families would be detrimental to their health and wellbeing
- Noise pollution and light pollution levels were considered too intrusive
- Access along Englishcombe Lane was restricted due to the camber of the road and the volume of traffic
- Road and pedestrian safety would be compromised
- Reduction of precious green spaces in an overcrowded heritage city
- Security of properties would be reduced due to easier access to the rear of properties

We feel that 28 years on, these issues are still relevant and confirm that this area is NOT suitable to be developed for housing.
14/05/2018
David And Jane Roberts 97 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O Documents Tab 16/07/2018
Colin And Iona Bogle 95 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O Documents Tab 13/05/2018
Malcolm Butt 83 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O 09/05/2018: I have studied the plans relating to the proposed development and wish to register my objection.

The land proposed for development is currently habitat for deer, bats, owls, slow worms and active badger setts, and the animals forage and roam on the land to the rear of the houses on Englishcombe lane.

Despite traffic calming on Englishcombe Lane, vehicles regularly travel at twice or more the speed limit and it is often dangerous to exit our driveways due to restricted visibility. An additional junction at the proposed site would add significantly to the existing risk, and any attempt to widen the road to improve visibility may result in even greater traffic speed. The risk to pedestrians would increase, especially to the local primary school children on their walk to school.

There are a large number of derelict sites in Bath which would benefit from residential development. This is where new housing should be focussed rather than destroy the existing areas of natural beauty.

It appears that development company is owned by or has strong links with BaNES council, has council members as directors. In addition, consultants used to report on the proposals have connections with the council. This represents a conflict of interests and in order to be credible any such work should be undertaken by truly independent individuals.

In my opinion the application should be rejected due to the persistent destruction of Bath's areas of natural beauty, the adverse impact on wildlife and the increased danger to local residents. The benefits of the new housing would not outweigh the negative impact on the existing area.
09/05/2018
Jenny Bowles 23 Stirtingale Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2NF O Documents Tab 10/05/2018
Mr J Henderson 19 Stirtingale Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2NF O Documents Tab 10/05/2018
Darren Bird 15 Stirtingale Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2NF O Documents Tab 08/05/2018
Tony Henderson 11 Stirtingale Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2NF O 11/05/2018: Objection to planning application 18/01516/REG04.

1- Loss of amenity and privacy on the west boundary at rear Stirtingale Rd.Plot numbers 12-15 are not a suitable distance from the rear of Stirtingale rd properties, as the land sits high along this section it will infringe on our privacy.

2- The architecture is not in keeping with current buildings in the area,the use of timber is completely contrasting.I believe the plan is to use red colour tiles for the roof construction which will be like a beacon,sure to provoke a backlash from residents on the north side of Bath.

3- Whilst the environment agencies have provided masses of reports regarding water,drainage etc, no where does anyone commit to a guarantee that there will be no issues with flooding,damp problems or water ingress to new or established properties.With that in mind, if BANES or any developer still feels confident to go ahead and build, will they implement an insurance backed guarantee against any future water related problems to established housing and land ?

4-BANES announced it's intention to minimise the ecological impact on the field.This has been nothing more than a complete sham.Sending in contractors with brushcutters to clear all overgrowth is destruction of wildlife.The erecting a reptile fence is destructive to natural wildlife movement especially at the time of year it was put up. Sending out a man to try and collect slo worms etc does not resolve the destruction BANES has caused and all before any planning has been granted !

5-We have been made aware that one of the people on the planning committee is also the director of the building company that want to build these properties, and has allegedly been reprimanded by BANES in the past.

6- Although only facts should come into play during an objection process, i for one feel very uneasy about this whole project and also feel that BANES is trying a cheap shot at including the 'affordable housing' bit into this scheme. The plot is small and has many complications, and certainly won't solve any housing crises.
11/05/2018
Rachel And David Sartin 123 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O Documents Tab 14/05/2018
David Floyd 117 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O 15/05/2018:
Planning Services
Lewis House
Manvers Street
Bath
BA1 1JG

Correspondence via email

15/05/2018

Dear Sir/Madam

Ref: Planning Applications Reference:18/01516/REG04

As a foreward to any comments on the proposed application referenced above I would like to highlight a wider BANES policy;
“Green infrastructure can deliver a range of natural services. It offers ways to protect and enhance ecological networks, prepare for climate change, build economic success, manage flood risk and improve health and well-being. It provides alternative active access options and quality green spaces for exercise and socialising. It should help to enhance landscape character and local distinctiveness and also provide attractive and appealing places to live and work.”
“The Council values the natural environment very highly and is committed through Council Vision and Values and the Core Strategy to maintaining and improving it. The Green Infrastructure Strategy provides a framework to work with partners and the community to make the most of the benefits that the natural environment can and should be providing for people, places and nature within and beyond the district.”
Source: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/environment/green-infrastructure
While I note from the published Core strategy Englishcombe Lane doesn’t seem to appear as designated GI space. The proposed development of Conservation land does appear at odds with these wider publicised strategies.
With reference to the above planning application I would like to raise a number of concerns over the application that amount to an objection to the proposal. Please note I do not consider these points to be raised in order or importance. For your ease I have number the points.
1- Loss of amenity and privacy on the Southern boundary.
While it has been extremely difficult to establish the true height of the proposed block of flats included on the plans the height and impact of the proposed block of flats appears intrusive. I believe, due to the height of the buildings, these will significantly impact on the privacy of residents of Englishcombe Lane and are not in keeping with the surrounding properties or sympathetic to the area.

While the plans claim they will be of two storey construction given the slope of the land, which doesn’t appear to have been allowed for, and the inclusion of a 3rd floor to allow for a boiler room these will be a 3 storey construction. Which, in my view, is not in keeping with the surrounding area and would severely affect residents on the southern boundary of the site. These properties will be directly overlooked and there would be an immediate loss of amenity to residents who’s gardens back on to this boundary. This appears to directly affect the households of house numbers 121,119,117,115,113 & 111 as a minimum.

2- I do not believe the residents of Englishcombe have been afforded sufficient notification of the proposals.
While some correspondence has been supplied to the residents of Englishcombe Lane and Stirtingale Road this appears to have been limited to the houses bordering the site. From discussion with neighbours on Englishcombe lane (for properties that do not directly back on to the site) they appear to have had no notification of the planned development or development consultations. This appears to be poor on the behalf of the developers and is less than transparent with residents. Especially as these are families that will be directly impacted by the plans given their proximately to the potential development. Indeed it feels at though this has been done to limit the amount of attention any application may receive.

3- Road safety
There are several concerns with regard to the safety given the limited road access to the site as planned. It appears that the proposed entrance to the site is just plain unsuitable.
• I have been unable to find a copy of the Stage one safety audit on the planning portal and it is unclear whether road safety has been fully and suitably considered.
• It is clear that the road has been incorrectly categorised in consultations as a low volume/low usage road. Which is incorrect given the Englishcombe Lane is an integral link road between Bear Flat and Southdown. Englishcombe lane is a key access road for local residents and features a number of local businesses. It also features a large amount of on street parking and often has vehicles parked on both sides of the road. The addition of c37 additional homes will lead to an addition demand for parking and road access. This will clearly increase road traffic further.
• It is noted that recommendations to increase the safety of the access lane by including suitable roads hatchings has not been included on the plans. This appears to increase the danger of the proposed access point
• Planning documents make clear that refuse collection vehicles will need to use both lanes to be able to make a turn onto the sire and given the volume of usage of traffic during the day is a further risk that doesn’t appear to have been acknowledged or considered appropriately.

I note NPPF Section 4 and Policy T24 that enforce the expectation of the highest standards of road safety will need to be achieved as part of a successful planning application. It is quite clear that the application is flawed in the assessment and treatment of its road access strategy. The proposed development will only increase risk for local road users.
4- There is a requirement for the scheme to be in keeping and sympathetic to the existing neighbours.
The design of the proposed buildings do not appear to be in keeping with surrounding properties in a number of ways. The inclusion of wood cladding, Juliet balconies and bright roof tiles are not in keeping the area. Indeed the construction of a 3 floor block of flats is not sympathetic to the area. Given the site is within a world heritage city the development could be more in keeping with the surrounding properties. The development will be visible across Bath.

5- Loss of amenity and privacy on the west boundary
The proposed development leads to buildings on the west side of the development becoming too close to planned buildings. General guidance appears to indicate that the distance from a boundary fence to the back door of a proposed dwelling should be 5m per storey. Therefore for two storey buildings (as per plans on the west side) its should be a minimum of 10 metres away as a minimum. There is also potential consideration of the topography of the land. There is a genuine concern that the development will spoil the amenity of the residents at this side of the proposed development. This appears to directly affect the amenity of residents from 9 Stirtingale Road upwards

6- Impact on the Stirtingale Farm Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI)
It is my understanding the site receives policy protection under Policy NE3 of the BaNES Placemaking Plan is considered to be of county level importance for nature conservation.

I would like to reference Johns Associates’ Biodiversity Strategy;

“The Englishcombe Lane (Stirtingale Farm SNCI) supports habitats which are Section 41 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 Habitats of Principal Importance (UK Government, 2006), as well as legally protected species.”

The Englishcombe Lane site is located within the boundary of the Stirtingale Farm Site and I believe that the development will result in net biodiversity loss as a result of negative impacts to Stirtingale Farm SNCI. While alternative sites for investment have been highlighted this has been done on an offset basis and that this should only be considered as a last resort and where ‘material considerations are sufficient’.
It is unclear to me what metric is being used to determine that the gain of this development is outweighing the loss to the environment as;
• There are limited affordable housing units proposed and I can not ascertain any significant benefits to the proposed development aside from financial gains for the council who will be the full beneficiary of the development proceeds.
• The requirement for a ‘robust offsetting strategy’ and a long-term management plan appears to be entirely unknown for the preferred receptor site at the point of this planning application. This site appears to still require significant additional detailed assessment and design and the compensation package appears unknown. Therefore there is no assurance that the package will deliver the predicted biodiversity units and adequate level of compensation in accordance with Policy NE3. There is no clarity as to whether this will achieve the required offset to validate the destruction of this site of ecological importance.

This appears to breech National Policy when biodiversity cannot be mitigated or adequately compensated for and the proposal contains no evidence this has been adequately catered for.

7- Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (B&NES Policy NE3 3b) clearly states:

“Development which would adversely affect, directly or indirectly other, species, habitats or features of biodiversity/ geodiversity importance or value will only be permitted in the following cases:

b. for Sites of Nature Conservation Importance; Local Nature Reserves, Regionally Important Geological/ Geomorphological Sites and other sites of equivalent nature conservation value, where material considerations are sufficient to outweigh the local biological geological / geomorphological and community/amenity value of the site;”

As referred to above in (point 6) it is questionable whether there are material considerations sufficient to outweigh the impact on such a valuable conservation site. In addition to this I feel it is worth highlighting some of the ecological points of concern.
• The land has started to be prepared for development before the planning permission has been granted. While his has been claimed as “maintenance” of some kind this is out of character as the site has rarely received any maintenance attention previously. This has undoubtedly caused significant harm to the ecology of the site. There has been indication to this maintenance being required as part of the Ecological report however the report does not mention such works.

Indeed the Wildlife Trust has stated;
‘The installation of a reptile fence to prevent colonisation does not suggest ecological enhancements are the primary aim. This sounds like pre-commencement conditions associated with planning permission.’
Source-Eric Heath, Head of Land Management and Advice, Land Management Team, Wildlife Trusts
• There is an active badger set on the site and the development will clearly affect the badgers which can contravene the Protection of Badgers act
• There appears to have been no consideration of the deer that in habit the site. These are much loved by the local residents and there has been no consideration of the impact in the loss of this habitat on them.
• Potential impact to Bats outlined in The Ecological Impact Assessment. Reports confirm that the development could lead to the removal of flight lines and foraging opportunities for bats species listed on the SSSI citation. Cleary the loss of this unspoilt land will affect the Bats food sources.
• The Ecological Impact Assessment Report advises:
“Aquatic invertebrate surveys were undertaken when flows were low. Surveys undertaken following a period of prolonged rainfall may yield a more diverse assemblage… further surveys earlier in the season (e.g. May) could highlight additional species that, owing to short macroinvertebrate lifecycles, may not have been represented in the autumn.”
I have not been able to establish whether this has been considered further and it appears that a limited view has been taken of the wider impact of the planned development of the ecology of the area. The report also clarifies that indirect impacts on Stirtingale Farm are deemed to be high due to “altered hydrological regime for flushes, temporary land take during construction, lighting impacts, and disturbance to habitat arising due to residential use (e.g. dumping of garden waste, dog fouling, cat predation and recreational disturbance).” This appears to add to the weight of evidence that the fullest ecological impact are yet to be assessed as part f the application.

8- Impact on Englishcombe Lane residents gardens/properties due to surface water.
I have strong concerns over the potential impact of increased soak away water. Gardens along Englishcombe can already become boggy due to the range of natural streams that are in the area. I have seen evidence that consideration has been made around the drainage for the proposed development, but soak away and surface water is already a concern in the Englishcombe Lane area. Currently soak away proposals show water will be diverted. Where is that water going and how will this affect our properties/gardens. It is also of concern that residents will have no recourse should issues develop and the consideration this has been given as part of the panning application is scant.

9- Drainage protection
Between 89 and 123 there are major concerns that the proposed levels of drainage protection is not robust enough. The surveys available on the planning portal do not appear conclusive and there is a risk to home owners that problems in this area will cause further expense and inconvenience in future as direct result of the development.

As a resident of Englishcombe Lane I would like to make clear I have deep reservations about the planned development of the site Land to the rear of 89 to 123 Englishcombe Lane.
There appears to be minimal benefit to developing the land given the volume of units that it can accommodate. However the impact the development will have on the environment, the community and its residents is disproportionate. Some of which I have outlined here.

Better use could be made of the land to reinforce its importance to the community and further enhance the clear natural benefits of this open land.

Yours faithfully


David and Carly Floyd
15/05/2018
Kate And Daniel Groves 115 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O Documents Tab 15/05/2018
Jill McClean 113 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O Documents Tab 08/05/2018
F Clark 111 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O Documents Tab 10/05/2018
Sally Martin 109 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O 22/04/2018: I wish to register an objection to the planning application relating to the land to the rear of
Englishcombe Lane.
Having read the ecology reports carefully, they confirm what residents have known all along. That
the Site is of immense ecological importance. Development of the Site would contravene the
Council’s own planning policy NE3 without good reason.
The flushes and rare habitat in the area are of great importance and the offer of throwing some
money at a field on Pennyquick will in no way compensate for the irreparable damage done to this
site of nature conservation interest. The tufa flushes in particular are impossible to recreate and
once lost will be gone forever. 86% of the site habitat will be lost with calcareous grassland
habitats being destroyed completely.
I note that the ecology report also states that the origins of the flushes are difficult to identify. This
raises concerns in that a hillside of springs, as this area is, can be unpredictable. In the park to
the north of the Site a new spring has arisen leading to a boggy section and erosion of the
pathway. A little lower down, on Moorfields Road, there are at least two permanent wet areas
across the pavement- the result of springs which in winter in particular are treacherous. What is
to stop new springs emerging on our properties if the Site is developed and the land disturbed?
Will the council be providing indemnity insurance against such events? If the natural springs
really are so easily controlled, why has action not been taken in the park or on Moorfields Road to
sort out the problems there?
Drainage has always been a major concern. Properties on Englishcombe Lane have, from time to
time, had issues with flood water. (The installation of the drainage pipe between 107 and 109
being the result). It’s disturbing that surveys were taken at such a dry time of the year (June 2017)
See YouTube (https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dyoutu.be%26v%3DMIHFnT06
MPc&data=02%7C01%7C%7C8740b0afd3864bfb2dc708d589f484a2%7Cfeda8d1b9c134c5da3
d98c688ad9c7a2%7C0%7C0%7C636566605770844114&sdata=CVKF%2FHjTPxb7a%2FbR%2
FlCeeD9ytVzQ%2BX8exXjMTHbp7IA%3D&reserved=0)
for a clip of the more recent water flow in the field (March 2018) . Again, we can only take the
word of the council chosen company that drainage will be dealt with properly.
It’s worrying that the 225mm overflow pipe to be installed will drain on to the access road. The
drainage report states that water would then follow the fall of the road and flow into fields
northwards…..unfortunately there are private dwellings opposite the access road. Surely they are
more likely to be the recipients of such overflow rather than the water taking a right turn and
heading merrily off to the play park? It is also stated that “exceedance flows could flow through
garden, between the houses and on to Englishcombe Lane”. Experience would suggest that
water doesn’t follow instructions and the potential of exceedance water entering property should
surely have been acknowledged. Should this awful development go ahead, we will all be
dependant on the private management company maintaining the drains. How can we be assured
they are qualified to do so and will carry out effective maintenance? What would happen should
the company become insolvent?
Another consequence of disturbing the natural water flow must be the consideration of
disturbance to the mudflows present in the field. The Council report from 1986 concludes that an
Adequate Factor of Safety against Failure of the slopes to the south of the site could not be
achieved without measures being taken on the Stirtingale Farm site. I read elsewhere that no
response has been forthcoming from the owner of Stirtingale Farm, therefore how can those
safety measures have been adhered to?
I remain unconvinced that the drainage will be adequately controlled at all times, and once again
the perceived benefits of developing the Site, in no way outweigh the destruction caused.
I am troubled by section 2.7 , the Heritage Statement of the planning contextual analysis by the
architects which states there is no intrinsic value or significance to the application site. This is in
direct opposition to the results of the ecological studies which shows the site is of great interest
and value. Bath is a beautiful World Heritage City, and the Site is part of the conservation area
Part of the reason the Site is as it is, is that it has been relatively undisturbed due to it’s lack of
public accessibility - this has resulted in the distinctive mosaic of habitat which is of such
importance. To destroy it would be detrimental to the overall wellbeing and uniqueness of our
World Heritage City.
I note some discrepancies concerning the second consultation event…firstly it was not held at St
Bethesda Chapel (where is that?!). If such obvious details are wrong, how can we be sure the
other information presented is accurate?
I note that solar panels will be fitted to all market housing units. Why not to the social housing
units also? If these measures are considered important then they should be made available to all.
It remains unclear as to whether this is a viable option anyway due to lack of sunlight from much
of the Site being in the lee of the hill. Have further tests been done to establish viability - can we
see the results please?
The plant room for the block of flats will be located at ground level and hence at the end of our
gardens. I am very concerned about the pollution from noise and fumes that we will be subjected
to should this project go ahead.
I am also concerned about the addition of roofs over the car ports. Inside such an enclosed
sheltered place will be an ideal location for anti social behaviour and the accumulation of rubbish.
Security to our properties will also be compromised by the addition of the roofs, providing an ideal
and tempting climbing place for kids to hang out. The risk of pollution at this point on the Site is
also very high from the standing vehicles left in such a high concentration in this area.
This brings me on to the worrying prospect that once the council have developed the land, that
will be the end of their responsibilities, with a management company being expected to be
responsible for the site. Where will ultimate responsibility lie when it is no longer a viable business
proposition for the company concerned?
I note a board will be erected at the flush site. Do you really think this will deter kids from playing
in the water, or dogs and other domestic animals polluting the valuable water course? The
introduction of traffic (to say nothing of the construction process) will also lead to undesirable
levels of pollution. I note also the intention to spray the area with glyphosate as part of the
development. Surely this will enter the watercourse and cause pollution.
I remain of the opinion that development of this Site will not outweigh the ecological damage
caused. The development would create an adverse impact on the landscape and has no
demonstrable public benefit.
I must take issue with details contained in the transport statement. Section 2.12 refers to First
Bus service 1 and refers to Coronation Road and Sladebrook Lane. Where are these streets? I
think you mean Coronation Avenue and Sladebrook Avenue. This does not fill me with confidence
that you know the area well enough to comment on it’s transport issues. Similarly the fact that
Sladebrook Avenue and Coronation Avenue are “quiet roads and suitable for cyclists” is
laughable. The number of university busses using that route and the ‘traffic calming’ measures
would make cycling there a very dodgy occupation. Whoever wrote this transport statement does
not know the area at all.
The claim of relatively low vehicle movements on Englishcombe Lane is debatable. At school pick
up time in particular the road is very busy at just the time most pedestrians are using the
pavements. Yes, Englishcombe Lane is subject to a 20 mph speed limit, but on more than one
occasion I have been overtaken whilst doing 20mph, including cars going round the bollards on
the wrong side of the road to overtake me. There are also a significant number of delivery lorries
using Englishcombe Lane servicing, amongst others,Tesco Express. A number of coaches,
particularly during the summer months also use the Lane regularly. There have also been many
accidents on Englishcombe Lane, the most recent between a moped and car though these figures
probably do not get recorded unless someone is killed - which has also happened during the time
we have lived here.
I am pleased to see that sufficient parking is planned for the proposed development. Parking on
Englishcombe Lane, particularly when there is an event on at Baskervilles Gym is very dense and
visability a problem. However the thought of another 88 cars pouring out of the development
every morning will lead to an increase in pollution along Englishcombe Lane particularly affecting
pedestrians. As an asthmatic this is a very real issue as I enjoy walking, but the fumes from cars
can be a trigger. The congestion in the mornings is bad as it is getting onto Bloomfield Road and
Rush Hill - either end of Englishcombe Lane. Extra traffic will inevitably cause greater congestion
at these pinch points.
Section 5.7 refers to the secondary schools available to potential residents. It refers Bath
Community Academy on Rush Hill. Given that this school is scheduled to close in July 2018, this
is totally irrelevant to this planning application. In fact a local neighbour was unable to get her son
into Beechen Cliff school without going to appeal because of the pressure on school places. It
simply will not do to keep on building houses without making sure the local infrastructure will
support the development.
To quote that there is a 768 bus service is a bit disingenuous too since there are no bus stops on
Englishcombe Lane thus rendering the service less than useful!
The other issue which does not seem to have been addressed is the possibility of further
development to the east of this Site. Once the access road has been put in, it will also give
access to further fields to the east which we know have builders interested in developing. Hence
further pollution and destruction of the local environment may well ensue. The development of
the Site cannot be seen in isolation.
It will be interesting to see how unbiased or otherwise this planning process is. The fact that
reptile translocation work seems to have begun before the planning application even went in rings
alarm bells.
For the sake of 37 dwellings, the majority of which are in no way affordable to the average local,
the destruction of such a significant Site in our beautiful city of Bath simply cannot be justified.
11/05/2018: Further to my previous objection to the development of this site, I feel I must also make the following observations:

Details of the proposed block of flats have been sought from the Council and responses have been most disappointing in their general unhelpfulness. I feel so sorry for the local residents who are elderly and for our 2 neighbours in particular who are undergoing life extending chemotherapy who are unable to spend the required hours searching through so many files for information which could have been provided clearly and easily by the council. Elderly neighbours in particular do not have internet access so the response to look at all the documents is of no use at all. As such, these vulnerable residents are unable to put forward reasoned objections to this proposal despite being very troubled by the thought of it. I read in the Council's own Together magazine (spring 18 edition) "Putting residents first. That's the simple statement at the heart of everything the Council does..." Hmm!

Concerning the flats proposed for the end of our garden, they are totally out of keeping with the neighbourhood. There are no other flats in the vicinity and construction materials of wood and brick is at odds with the pre application details which stated buildings should blend with prevailing characteristics of the site and context. Given that our gardens are to the rear of the block of flats we will be subject to being totally overshadowed and overlooked by the flats since the ground level measurements given on the plans relate to the front of the building. Due to the plant room underneath - the source of pollution and noise - being at our ground level, the consequence will be that windows will be at least 3m. Due to the density of planned buildings at this point on the site and the number of windows overlooking us this is totally unacceptable and will cause loss of amenity to us using our properties to the full extent.

I remain of the opinion that permission for this development should be denied.

16/05/2018 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
Nicholas And Marise Moss 103 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O Documents Tab 15/05/2018
Kimberly Stokes 101 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O 10/04/2018: I write in connection with the above planning application I have examined the plans and know the site as it is at the top of my garden and I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses. Paragraph 64 of the national planning policy framework states that permission should be refused for development of poor design and that fails to improve the quality of an area... I would like to ask how exactly this is going to improve the area? What a shambles this development will totally ruin our community the wildlife behind our houses will be non existent when you did your tests and came to realise it was rich in wildlife! Seems to us residents all your worried about is making money as these houses wont be affordable. The area isn't made for houses... its a bog land with mud planes and are you going to cover costs if our houses start to subside or if our gardens end up a boggy mess? the road you will use to access the site is just adding more traffic to an area where school children walk everyday it wouldn't surprise me if there are accidents because the access road isn't big enough and if you lived in the area you would realise the road narrows around that part and that road floods at the bottom when it heavily rains. On your heads be it if a school child gets ran over here. The poor people who live next to this lane will experience traffic noise going past their house at all hours. And us poor residents will have to put up with a concrete jungle and the noise that comes with it we don't want it. there has been talk of developing this area for years so why now? There is no need for council housing in this area we have worked hard to live in a nice area and now your probably setting us up for the crime rate to go up.

yours sincerely
Kimberley stokes
10/04/2018
Stephen Gregg And Nicky Chatten 99 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O 14/05/2018: In reference to the planning application 18/01516/REG.
Our objections fall into three areas.

Governance

• The developer, Aequus Developments LTD is 100% wholly owned by BANES. Cllr Les Kew is a director of the company and is also on BANES planning committee. There is a clear lack of transparency and a flagrant conflict of interest at the heart of this process.

• We are also extremely concerned that work has already stared on the site even before permission has been granted. We note that the clearance of scrub and the erection of reptile fences has begun and has already impacted on the wildlife. How has this been allowed?

Ecology


• We do not believe that there are sufficient material considerations to outweigh the impact to the biodiversity that exists on this site, including deer, badgers, foxes, and bats.

• The site forms part of Stirtingale Farm SNCI (Sites of Nature Conservation Interest). We believe that the proposed development would, in the words of BANES Core Strategy and Place Making Plan (2014/17) “adversely affect, directly or indirectly other, species, habitats or features of biodiversity/ geodiversity importance” (NE3 Sites, Species and Habitats). This states that such development “will only be permitted” for “Sites of Nature Conservation Importance; Local Nature Reserves, Regionally Important Geological/ Geomorphological Sites and other sites of equivalent nature conservation value, where material considerations are sufficient to outweigh the local biological geological / geomorphological and community/amenity value of the site.”

• The Ecological Impact Assessment clearly states that, despite off-setting measures there will still be a “residual impact” and net loss of habitats associated with flush habitat, habitat mosaic, invertebrates, and reptiles (Sections 9 and 10). Moreover, neither the Assessment nor the panning proposals offer any evidence at all for the Assessment’s conclusion that there is potential “net gain for the local ecological network”. Indeed, it only states this as an aspiration that “will require significant additional detailed assessment and design.” The Assessment notes that there will be no impact on bats. However, the Site has been assessed as displaying highly suitable foraging value for bats in accordance with the industry guidelines (Bath Conservation Trust, 2016).

• We are also extremely concerned that the clearance of scrub and the erection of reptile fences has begun even before the planning application has been accepted. This has already disrupted the wildlife inhabiting this land.


Traffic and safety
• The site will have a disastrous effect on traffic and safety in Englishcombe Lane.

• Englishcombe Lane is a busy and well-used highway, connecting traffic from the East and South-East of Bath to Bear Flat and central Bath. Traffic is particularly heavy during the times of the school-runs and rush hours. The presence of Baskerville’s Gym on the lane also contributes to increased traffic - at peak times, over 50 cars can be seen parked on Englishcombe Lane and on nearby roads. The entrance to the Site - within a few hundred meters of the entrance to Baskervilles - will particularly exacerbate the traffic density at this pinch-point on Englishcombe Lane.

• Parking is on both sides of the street causes poor visibility: traffic already has to carefully weave through this. The existence of another road entrance and exit that has to negotiate parked cars either side of the entrance clearly adds to the problems of traffic safety.

• Current plans for access is dangerous and likely to be unsafe: vehicles exiting the Site will have to negotiate poor visibility. In addition, traffic turning right into the Site will have to negotiate oncoming traffic and cause disruption to through traffic. The Pre Application Advice Report notes that “highway officers consider the proposed build outs into Englishcombe Lane … to be inappropriate in this location.”

• These factors clearly contradict BANES Core Strategy and Place Making Plan (2014/17) on Promoting Sustainable Travel which notes that it is “important that the need for new development is balanced with minimising traffic congestion and making places more accessible by sustainable modes of transport” in particular the guidelines for planning under ST1.
14/05/2018
Frank And Gill Kenny 96 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EJ O Documents Tab 14/05/2018
Elizabeth Cross 92 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EJ O 13/05/2018: Having reviewed the plans relating to the proposed development, I wish to register my objection.

I feel very strongly that this development should not go ahead, for reasons including the negative impact on local ecology, potential drainage issues, road and pedestrian safety, a lack of amenities to support an increased local population and the destruction of much needed green space in this already congested city.

I also understand that there is a conflict of interest in relation to this proposal, with members of the council having a vested interest in its success. As such, I believe that the proposal breaches council policy and should be reviewed independently before any future action is taken.

Policy N3 states that developments should only be considered where material considerations are sufficiently outweigh the biological value of the site. As we know, the flora and fauna of the proposed site is considered to be of county level importance, and as such is protected under policy NE3, being within the SNCI boundary. There are multiple species that will be adversely affected by the proposed development, impacting negatively on local biodiversity.

Drainage is a constant problem in this area. During periods of heavy rain, the roadway outside my property regularly floods as a result to the drains being overloaded. The flooding leads to restricted traffic flow and resulting road safety issues. When proposed historical developments at the same site have been turned down on the basis of drainage alone, it is worth considering the full impact of building on top of boggy, clay rich land, with materials that will not allow adequate soak away.

The proposed entrance to the site will be in breach of policy T24, as it will impact on highway safety. If it goes ahead, it would create a pinch point in an already fast moving highway, leading to risks to both motorists and pedestrians alike. As a result of cars parked along Englishcombe Lane close to this access point, it is already a struggle to access my own driveway safely, with reduced visibility caused by such on-street parking. With the proposed development, there will be a further increase in traffic flow, not to mention a constant source of noise and light pollution to residents at this section of the Lane.

It seems impossible to consider how large construction vehicles will access the entrance safely during the development phase, and at a later stage, refuse and maintenance vehicles moving up and down what is essentially a one-way track.

There will be pedestrians passing by this entrance regularly, including school children and parents with buggies, heading to the local school, dance and gymnastics studio, all of whom would be placed at risk as a result of the increased traffic flow and inevitable extended disruption.

The proposed houses themselves would not fit in with the surrounding properties, which are predominantly made with Bath stone. The proposed timber cladding exteriors would age quickly and require regular maintenance in order to protect them from weathering. It would be a significant blot on what should be a green space landscape, for which Bath is so renowned.

I feel that local residents have not been given full disclosure about the extent and finer details of this project and as such, it should not be allowed past the planning stages.










13/05/2018: Having reviewed the plans relating to the proposed development, I wish to register my objection.

I feel very strongly that this development should not go ahead, for reasons including the negative impact on local ecology, potential drainage issues, road and pedestrian safety, a lack of amenities to support an increased local population and the destruction of much needed green space in this already congested city.

I also understand that there is a conflict of interest in relation to this proposal, with members of the council having a vested interest in its success. As such, I believe that the proposal breaches council policy and should be reviewed independently before any future action is taken.

Policy N3 states that developments should only be considered where material considerations are sufficiently outweigh the biological value of the site. As we know, the flora and fauna of the proposed site is considered to be of county level importance, and as such is protected under policy NE3, being within the SNCI boundary. There are multiple species that will be adversely affected by the proposed development, impacting negatively on local biodiversity.

Drainage is a constant problem in this area. During periods of heavy rain, the roadway outside my property regularly floods as a result to the drains being overloaded. The flooding leads to restricted traffic flow and resulting road safety issues. When proposed historical developments at the same site have been turned down on the basis of drainage alone, it is worth considering the full impact of building on top of boggy, clay rich land, with materials that will not allow adequate soak away.

The proposed entrance to the site will be in breach of policy T24, as it will impact on highway safety. If it goes ahead, it would create a pinch point in an already fast moving highway, leading to risks to both motorists and pedestrians alike. As a result of cars parked along Englishcombe Lane close to this access point, it is already a struggle to access my own driveway safely, with reduced visibility caused by such on-street parking. With the proposed development, there will be a further increase in traffic flow, not to mention a constant source of noise and light pollution to residents at this section of the Lane.

It seems impossible to consider how large construction vehicles will access the entrance safely during the development phase, and at a later stage, refuse and maintenance vehicles moving up and down what is essentially a one-way track.

There will be pedestrians passing by this entrance regularly, including school children and parents with buggies, heading to the local school, dance and gymnastics studio, all of whom would be placed at risk as a result of the increased traffic flow and inevitable extended disruption.

The proposed houses themselves would not fit in with the surrounding properties, which are predominantly made with Bath stone. The proposed timber cladding exteriors would age quickly and require regular maintenance in order to protect them from weathering. It would be a significant blot on what should be a green space landscape, for which Bath is so renowned.

I feel that local residents have not been given full disclosure about the extent and finer details of this project and as such, it should not be allowed past the planning stages.










13/05/2018
Mrs Maragaret Cartwright 89 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH R Documents Tab 17/04/2018
Emma Jones Redcliffe Homes , Holly House, 4 High Street, Chipping Sodbury, BS37 6AH, R 15/05/2018: I am writing to express my concern that given the immense amount of work that has gone into the submission of this planning application, it cannot be delivered without the co-operation of neighbouring land owners.

As you are no doubt aware, we act for Mrs Joanna Vening who owns the land adjoining the site (Title AV107214 and AV9927 on the attached land registry plans). You will also be aware of the lengthy discussions held with BANES and their agents over the years following a letter sent by BANES in 2011. This letter sought Mrs Vening’s consent to remove trees on her land so that BANES could create an access between no.s 87 and 89 Englishcombe Lane.

Despite these discussions lasting over 24 months, no agreement has ever been reached between the parties. Whilst you may believe that you can remove overhanging branches and roots, you have a duty of care to protect trees that don’t belong to you. I am therefore deeply concerned about any damage that may be caused to them. This is even more pertinent given that this route is used by lesser horseshoe bats as a major commuting and foraging corridor as identified in previous ecological surveys we conducted on the land.

I simply cannot understand how despite the site’s designation within the Stirtingale SNCI the full season of bath surveys (May to September) have not been done. The application should not be determined until these surveys are done as the full impacts on the trees and any mitigation measures cannot be properly assessed.

I would also like clarification on where you will be providing access to Mrs Vening’s land given her rights of access over your land. It is not clear from the proposed layout.

I have separately written to Mr Derek Quilter from BANES Council to request a meeting to discuss these issues as without co-operation with Mrs Vening, we consider this housing site to be undeliverable.

I have also submitted a hard copy of this letter dated 11 May 2018.

15/05/2018
Martin Crook 119 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O Documents Tab 31/05/2018
Michelle Carey Not Given O Documents Tab 12/04/2018
Christine Cox 104 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EJ O 04/05/2018: I wish to object to the proposed development on the following grounds. There is an overall deficit of parks and green spaces in this area. The area that the proposed development is planned for, is a wild area of scrub-land that is completely undeveloped and as such is a rarity in the Bath area. There are many species that inhabit this area, deer, bats, slow-worms, owls, jays, badgers and foxes to name but a few. There will inevitably be a disruption to their habitat in the short and long term.

I am concerned about the increased risk of flooding in the properties further down the slope of Englishcombe Lane, that will come from disruption of the watercourses and the increase of concrete and non-porous materials used. There has been an increase in standing water in Moorfields recreation park since the building of houses to the rear of properties further along the road to this development. I do not believe that the developers can adequately prevent this happening to properties. I have concerns about the effect that this will have on my house and garden, possibly leading to subsidence.

Although this is a fairly small development, land adjacent to this development is already owned by, or has first refusal to other property developers. I am concerned that if this development goes ahead, it will give precedence to other developments in this area which will completely destroy the existing scrub-land.

04/05/2018
Rob Waterson 43 Highland Road, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1DY O 10/04/2018: I grew up on Englisgcombe Lane, and enjoyed the land as a kid. I want my kids, and all the families and their kids to continue to enjoy this haven.

The land is a hidden jewel in our city and over the years is home to many species of wildlife and protected flora. Deer, foxes, sloworms, probably rare amphibians in hidden ponds to name a few....they have a right to their lives and we have a responsibility to treasure this wonderful area of wild countryside in the city. Truly unique...how many other cities can say that?

This is the thin end of the wedge..what's next? The entire Bloomfield hillside region no doubt. I smell big money bachhanders and BS. This will be taken all the way to Parliament.
10/04/2018
Stacey Ellis 18 Cotswold Road, Moorlands, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2DJ O 09/05/2018: Having lived in the area all my life and having a relative who used to live at no.95 Englishcombe Lane I feel I can confidently state this application will have an adverse effect on many aspects of the residents lives .

Englishcombe Lane is a particularly busy road and is a well known cut through for various schools and neighbouring areas.

4:1 of the transport plan reads
*safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people
The new entrance is particularly narrow and has a really poor visibility splay.

The intensification of traffic would and should be of concern. part one of the transport plan 3:1
*states 88 parking spaces will be provided.
This will bring the introduction of excessive traffic Which is in direct conflict of banes own transport plan which reads

“Developers should state how new occupiers or customers of the development will use alternative means of travel, which do not involve private vehicle use”

Suggeting new residents will have the use of the number 8 bus service which is a Shadow of its formal self and now runs only once every 30 minutes on a weekday and 45 min on weekends Is far from sustainable as is the use of the ‘CT768’ bus service which apparently goes to clutton twice a day.

Another element of the application which burdens me is the redirection of the natural springs,which run directly through the proposed site and then disperses further down onto the Moorfields estate.
You only have to walk through the fields on the north side of Englishcombe Lane to know how boggy the land can become.
More worringly is the introduction of a private management company to facilitate the maintenance of the Cut-off drains and cellular infiltration.
If banes wishes to sell this land for development why has it not instructed Wessex water to adopt this element of the proposed application. It seems rather shoddy to wash its hands with cellular infiltration maintenance.one can only imagine whag would happen of this becomes an issue later down the road,especially if the “private company” stops trading. who will take on the responsibility then ?

Kindest regards







09/05/2018
Ian Morris 12 The Circle, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1JA O 09/05/2018: I believe that the planned development consists of far too many dwellings for the area and that if granted, the permission will place undue pressure on local facilities and infrastructure - especially school spaces, GP surgeries and local
Government services.

The proposed area also appears to fall within a conservation area and is in contravention of the planning legislation.

It is clear that the proposed area is not suitable for such development and should be rejected on the basis of its overly negative impact on the local area.
09/05/2018
Chris Martin 109 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EH O Documents Tab 16/05/2018 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab