The Pucklechurch community website
village news, events, clubs, community, history

Click here to sign up for monthly email updates on news and events

If you have signed up for emails and are not getting them please check the following:
(i) your spam folder
(ii) the spam settings in your profile on your service provider’s website.

Make sure that you specify pucklechurch.org as a trusted domain

This section looks at the need for development in the area and potential issues with the current application.

Page Content

1. The Need for Development

2. Location

3. Observations on the current application

1. The Need for development

Housing

The Community Plan (see the plan results here) clearly identified a demand for housing from people with a local connection that could not be satisfied from the existing housing stock. 

The survey asked the following question: Is your household or anyone in your household looking for alternative accommodation for any of the following reasons?

Results

Note: 68% households answered this question

The Parish Council used this data to get SGC to accept that any development should give priority to local people. This resulted in SGC carrying out a ‘Housing Needs Survey’ which confirmed the Community Plan results.  SGC have stated that there will be some priority given to local people but have not given any details.

Doctors’ Surgery

It is self evident to users of the current surgery that it is not able to serve the needs of Pucklechurch adequately.  As well as the size and layout the location of the surgery means that access is difficult.

Furthermore the current premises are not owned by the practice and there is no guarantee that they will continue to be available in the future.

2. Location for Development

Oaktree Avenue has been identified for many years as an area for housing development. No other large area is currently designated for development.  Development of this scale elsewhere in the parish would almost certainly need to be in the Green Belt.  The Community Plan showed that there is overwhelming support for the preservation of the green belt with 89% saying that it should be protected at all costs and nly 5% of people specifically supporting residential development on the Green Belt.

3. Observation on the current application

Please Note: These are my observations. They do not necessarily represent those of the Parish Council or individual councillors.

Martin Smith

(i) Design, visual appearance, landscaping and materials

The developers have acknowledged that there were issues with the design during the consultation.  The key areas that they have addressed are:

• Replaced slate with tile roofing materials
• Reduced pitch of the mono pitch foof
• Reduced use of brickwork

The design used a variety of materials on the face of the building including plastic weatherboarding, A mix of through-colour roughcast and smooth finish renders and brickwork.

The developer states that "the design intention is to create a new character area that has it's own identity. A contemporary approach to the design has been adopted that is appropriate to it's immediate locality while at the same time responds positively to Pucklechurch's historic character, grain and context"

Do you agree with this?  Does this design achieve this objective? Do you feel that this development is right for a village in a rural location?

There are local examples of the mono-pitch roof style in Emerson’s Green on the development between Mangotsfield and the SITA recycling centre.  See here for some photos as well as 3D images of the proposed buildings.

The other area that they acknowledge is the height of the three storey apartments that were originally proposed. To reduce the impact these have now been designed as 2.5 storey buildings.

(ii) Layout and density of buildings

The density has been reduced from 90 units to 56 units in response to consultations. You can see the proposed layout on the two drawings  for the east (SITE PLAN EAST) and west (SITE PLAN WEST) here...

There are several objections to the density on the SGC website?

(iii) Pedestrian and wheelchair access from the sheltered housing of Dennisworth, Homefield and Poplars to the Surgery.

This has been a major concern of many people since the time it was proposed to relocate the surgery to Oaktree Avenue. The Parish Council are looking into providing a path from St. Aldam’s Drive along Oaktree Avenue which would be reasonably level.  It would also be a similar distance from the current surgery in Castle Road.

The developer acknowledges the issue with pedestrian access in the proposal and state the following:

Pedestrian access - as part of the off site works it is proposed to extend the pavement along the south side of Oaktree Avenue.

The plans submitted with the application show no such pavement.  It should be noted that the documents produced for the community consultation in November 2010 did show a pavement along the south side of Oaktree Avenue (running the length of the development and extended west as far as the bus stop opposite Kestrel Dr. / Merlin Ridge).  However, the plans submitted with this application have actually removed the section of pavement extending from the west to the bus stop from the plans.

(iv) Highway safety - parking

The current proposal is for 102 spaces for 56 dwellings which is a ratio of 1.8 spaces per dwelling.  This is higher than the 2001 census which showed Pucklechurch having 1.6 car/vans per dwelling.  This seems reasonable however, up to 12 or more spaces along Oaktree Avenue (which currently form an overflow area for existing properties) will be lost so the net gain to the area is actually 1.6 spaces per unit.

Parking is a major theme in many of the comments already made on the SGC website.

(v) Highway issues - traffic generation and vehicular access

The application does not appear to have covered the effect of the extra traffic on the local roads nor does it address the access issues for the surgery of the current layout. There are several comments from members of the public on these issues already on the SGC website.

Access roads are frequently mentioned in comments already posted on the SGC site.

(vi) Light Pollution

There does not appear to be any information on proposed lighting in the planning application.

(vii) Risk of flooding

The design of the surface water system for the new development includes a number of underground tanks to capture surface water and discharge it into the existing surface water drainage system so that it does not all flow into it at the same time. The capacity has been designed for a 1 in 30 year storm. However, it should be noted that storm data in use today was compiled many years ago and is not representative of current more extreme weather patterns.

The Environment Agency have objected the the design of the surface water drainage and have identified a number of issues. These can be seen in document “ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - 30/12/10” at the link here...

(viii) Sewage

The design shows that the sewage system from the development will connect to the existing sewers in Pucklechurch.  No supporting information nor any assessment of the current system to take the extra load has been given.

(ix) Play Equipment Provision

Due to changes made to accommodate the, now listed, barrage balloon mooring the amount of play equipment has been reduced. It appears that the area of equipment proposed falls well below SGC’s guidelines.  No explanation for this is given nor is there any proposal to provide additional equipment close to the development for play provision.

(x) Sustainability and Carbon Reduction.

Overall Energy Efficiency

The Design & Access statement in section 04 "scheme design" under "Sustainability" states that:

The scheme will be designed to achieve a Code for Sustainable Homes 3 star rating. This Government initiative is based on an array of factors being assessed and has been created to ensure a consistent recognized national rating can be awarded to new housing developments. This statement will set out the proposals for the scheme demonstrating that sustainable issues have been addressed. 

However, under the Code for Sustainable Homes Code level 3 compliance is mandatory for public and private sector new-build residences, including flats and houses.  In other words the minimum is being proposed.

The Community Plan for Pucklechurch, Shortwoood, Parkfield and Lyde Green (The Parish Plan) as adopted by the Pucklechurch Parish Council in July 2010 calls for the adoption of a "high standards of energy efficiency for all new development and encourage projects that include site-appropriate renewable energy technologies". This would suggest that the development needs to be designed to a higher standard than the minimum.

Boiler efficiency

The design and Access Statement says in one place that “Traditional gas boilers will be installed” while in another it sates that “Sedbuk A rated gas boiler” will be used.  To achieve the A rating the boiler would need to be a “condensing” not a “standard” boiler. This needs to be clarified.

Materials

The Design and Access Statement says that “As much timber as possible for the development will be sourced legally”. 

Are you happy that any illegal timber will be used in this development?

(xi) Public Right of Way

A public RoW exists across the development in the area of the barrage balloon moorings.  The is no information in the application on how this will be dealt with. SGC’s RoW have objected to the proposal and you can read the objections in document “PROW - 15/12/10” here...

(xii) Errors, Omissions and Inconsistencies

The application contains a number of issues. It refers to both Cosham Road and Cossham Road in relation to aspects of the development.  It refers to “this scheme is being developed by Knightstone Housing Association with funding coming from the HCA. This would suggest that due care and attention has not been paid to the application.  How many other errors are there? How is this dealt with in the planning process?  How can the public comment fairly on a an application with obvious errors?

(xiii) Other items identified by some of the public comments:

Most comments currently made on the SGC website cover points above.  The comments by P BRADLEY -03/01/2011 draws attention to items in the Reptile Survey, Tree Survey, Noise Survey, Existing Topographic Survey Diagram, Geo-technical and Town & Country Planning (environmental impact assessment).