THE HEATH AND HAMPSTEAD SOCIETY ON BEHALF OF
7/68
REPRESENTOR 68 - REDINGTON FROGNAL ASSOCIATION
ISSUE
Key aims of the Society and the Association are to protect Hampstead
from poor quality development that detracts from the area.
For many years, we have examined all Planning Applications relating to the area
and assessed them for their impact on conservation and on the local
environment.
During the evolution of the production of the current Draft Local Plan we made
written comments regarding the plan followed by meetings with Councillors and
those Officials involved.
HEARING STATEMENT - TO INSPECTOR of CAMDEN`S DRAFT LOCAL PLAN
- 20th to 25th SEPT 2016
BASEMENTS UNDER GARDENS - POLICY A5
The importance of the large number and size of gardens in contributing to the
area’s special character and biodiversity is stated and defined in the Hampstead
and the Redington Frognal Conservation Area Statements.
These gardens have many mature trees, are adjacent to and contribute to the
verdant openness of Hampstead Heath, are part of the ecological and green
corridors spreading from the Heath and contributing to biodiversity.
Many gardens are significantly large.
They also frequently contribute to the setting of the many listed buildings and the
many buildings which contribute to the quality of the Conservation Area.
Developers will quickly exploit any opportunity to build under (or on) these
gardens. Already some large gardens have been lost, frequently with crowded
developments of small detached houses (with small gardens) causing dramatic
diminution of the very special well-treed Conservation Area - e.g. Cannon Lane
and Well Road.
The construction of basements under these gardens inevitably leads to the loss of
many mature trees - the product of many generations of growth. Such mature
trees are irreplaceable. Once a garden has been significantly lost to a basement,
future owners will never be able to grow trees in their garden if they wish to. The
1 metre of soil depth suggested over new basements imposes a heavy load on
the basement structure and so usually carries only bushes, grass or hard paving
– hence the need to allow sufficient space around basements for large trees to
grow now and/or in the future.
THE 50% RULE
The derivation of a limit of 50% on the proportion of a garden which may be lost
to a basement is unclear - it appears to be an arbitrary figure - too generous for
even small urban gardens. We suggested to Camden during the consultation
period of the Draft Local Plan that it should be possible to protect large gardens
together with suggestions about how this might be done.
We believe that our area is not alone here, and request the following to apply to
the whole of Camden.
a) We would prefer that the maximum limit for all gardens in Camden should be
stated as “in exceptional circumstances up to 25%, or, alternatively
extended 3 metres beneath the garden measured from the original House
– whichever is the less.”
GARDENS IN CONSERVATION AREAS
In addition: we suggest that it is essential that:
b) the ban on basements under gardens of Listed buildings be extended to all
gardens in Conservation Areas in which gardens contribute to the quality
of the area.
Therefore we suggest that the following clauses in the Draft Local Plan be
amended:
d) Clause 6.143 Last sentence should be omitted (Basements may be
permitted under large gardens of Listed buildings ....etc.), and in addition - the
heading for this Clause should be amended to:
"Gardens of Listed Buildings and gardens in Conservation Areas": so that "no basements will be permitted under Gardens of Listed Buildings or
gardens in Conservation Areas which could contribute to the quality of the
area."
For the sake of clarity and to prevent misinterpretation of the guidelines we also
suggest that:
e)
Clause 6.141 The minimum dimension of the boundary margin left for
trees should be stated. We request a minimum of 2 metres for side boundaries
which would allow the future growth of a tree of up to 332mm trunk diameter
according to BS5837:2012 provided there is at least equal space in the
neighbouring garden. For rear boundaries where visually important, mature or
veteran trees, historic tree lines or a green corridor supporting wildlife foraging
and commuting are involved (with the onus on the developer to provide
independent verification that such wildlife foraging and commuting corridors are
not present) this should be 15 metres1.
f)
Clause A5 (d) A clear definition of what is meant by “garden area” is
required - presumably not “site area less building foot-print” but e.g. “the
private enclosed amenity area, usually at the rear of the building.”
1
This is supported by English Nature's 'Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran
Trees' (2014) for veteran trees, and would support our wish to make provision for the
mature trees that are characteristic of our Conservation Areas to become the veterans of
tomorrow, and to preserve gardens for future generations and for biodiversity.
Policy A3 Biodiversity
As the climate changes, all green spaces, including private gardens are becoming
increasingly vital to wildlife and people. They provide shade, absorb carbon, soak
up flood water and help to cool buildings. A well-managed network of gardens
stretching across Camden will also help wildlife to move more freely and adapt to
climate change.
There is an urgent need to restore and maintain ecological networks and to
provide potential foraging, roosting and nesting sites. Camden seeks to
strengthen existing green infrastructure and wildlife corridors, to provide new
green/habitat infrastructure and wildlife/habitat corridors and connectivity and
movement around the corridors.
Individually and in groups, rear gardens provide particularly diverse and
attractive habitats for wildlife. Adjoining rear gardens, with their trees and
hedges, form important green/habitat corridors and Core Sustenance Zones2. At
ground level and above, they have the potential to provide ecological
connections, enabling species to move along green / habitat corridors. For
example, hedges create cool, shady places in what might otherwise be a hot,
exposed site; mixed hedgerows provide food, nesting places and shelter for birds
and mammals; ornamental meadows with a large number of flowers can provide
both beauty and biodiversity value for their symbiotic association with specialist
invertebrates and through their seed and nectar.
Trees, particularly native species, are important for lichens, invertebrates, fungi,
bats, mammals and birds, with veteran native trees of special value for the rarer
species of invertebrates and fungi associated with them. Trees with tall canopies
in close proximity are particularly important as safe foraging routes for bats3, and
movement corridors (including to expand the gene pool of arboreal invertebrates
unable to fly).
The value of the Camden’s green habitat corridors is being compromised by
planning consents for rear garden buildings, property extensions and basements,
which almost invariably lead to hedge and tree fellings, including of important
mature trees.
An analysis of consented planning decisions within the Redington Frognal
Conservation Area between 2010 and June 2016 4, indicates that Camden granted
the following consents, to the detriment of biodiversity and green infrastructure:
•
for building extensions: 218, of which:
- 158 resulted in take-up of rear gardens
- 50 led to the disappearance or reduction of front gardens
- 30 caused losses to side gardens, compromising views from the street of
rear gardens and greenery
•
for the creation of, or extensions to, hard-surfaced front-garden parking
areas: 63
2
3
London Wildlife Trust “Spaces Wild”, page 10
A bat monitoring exercise by Dr Greg Carson of the Ecology Network found bats to be
present throughout the Redington Frognal Conservation Area in May 2016. Report and
Redfrog Anabat results are attached.
4
Redington_Frognal_extensions_2010-2016.xlsx
•
for rear garden outbuildings, ranging from a dog grooming salon and yoga
studio to swimming pools, air conditioning plant and terracing / decking: 49
Such planning applications additionally resulted in the felling of a very large
number of trees. For example, consents granted 5 to excavate a total of 80
basements, caused 307 trees and a number of hedgerows to be felled. These
were almost invariably felled to facilitate development.
The Redington Frognal area, in common with other Conservation Areas, has
suffered an unsustainable cumulative loss of soft surface (i.e. the loss cannot be
reversed with current legislative powers), trees and hedges, and an attendant
loss of biodiversity and green infrastructure.
We should like Camden to address this loss of biodiversity and soft
landscape through the following suggested additions and amendments,
including the adoption of the Camden Biodiversity Action Plan as
Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Clause 6.65. This should be clarified. Instead of seeking the provision of
new natural greenspace within the site, there should be a requirement to
quantify the area (square metres) of soft green landscape prior to the
development and post development, in order to demonstrate and quantify the
gain to be achieved.
Clause 6.67. Development typically pays lip service to this clause,
introducing bat and bird boxes while destroying habitat. Instead, we should
like to see a commitment to include the planting of a proportion of trees which
are capable of supporting significant numbers of invertebrates and lichens,
hedgerows that include native species and wildflower areas.
Clause 6.74 The phrase “Core Sustenance Zones” to be incorporated
“ Trees and vegetation are integral to the amenity and character of the
street scene, provide connections and habitat for wildlife and are integral
to Core Sustenance Zones
Clause 6.79
inserted:
The phrase wildlife foraging and commuting corridors to be
Where the loss of trees or vegetation of value, including to wildlife
foraging and commuting corridors, cannot be avoided or would
adversely affect their future growth, the Council will require suitable
replacements capable of providing at least equal amenity, wildlife
foraging, wildlife commuting and ecological value. Where this cannot
be achieved on-site, the Council will require a financial contribution
towards re-provision.
This should also include an express requirement for the replanting of a
number of trees equal to or greater than the number felled, a proportion
capable of supporting significant numbers of invertebrates and lichens,
and a requirement to replant, and provide maintenance for five years, if
any of these trees do not prosper during the first five years following their
planting.
5
mostly between 2010 and June 2016
Clauses 6.80 and 6.81 Instead of a “right tree for the right site approach:
we would favour a requirement for arboricultural reports to assess trees
according to their ability to support invertebrates and lichens, as in the
attached research paper (copyright Ofwell Wildilfe Trust), as well as their
visibility from the street and Conservation Area amenity and impact:
http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/woodland_manage/tree_value.htm
and: Alexander, A., Butler, J. and Green, T. (2006) 'The value of different
tree and shrub species to wildlife'. British Wildlife 18(1): 18 - 28
Conservation Areas
Clause 7.42. Conservation Area appraisal and management strategies to be
adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Conservation Area Advisory Committees to be provided with feedback on how
their input has informed or influenced Camden’s planning decision.
Transport
Aggregated data from OFSTED and the Independent Schools Inspectorate
indicate that the NW3 area accommodates 12,500 pupils, mostly at independent
schools. This has given rise to the area being known locally as an “education
park”. The schools have large catchment areas, extending across several local
authority areas and School Travel Plans are not enforced. The combination of
school run and commuter traffic contributes to traffic volumes of 9,300 vehicles
daily just using Fitzjohn’s Avenue in a southbound direction 6.
An illegal parking free-for-all currently operates, as parents simply put a
handwritten note in the window of their car saying they are collecting a child from
school. Camden admits that it has no clear policy on how long a parent can leave
a car unattended to drop/collect a child at school and, combined with the
aggression of school run drivers, wardens virtually never patrol the area at the
key time, let alone issue a PCN.
As part of Policy T1, Camden should include a commitment to patrol parking in
the vicinity of schools, on a regular basis during the key hours of the school run,
and to enforce a clear policy of penalising illegal parking by school-run drivers.
6
Church Row submission to TfL 3.3.16 “School run traffic”, page 3
Supporting Evidence
Policy A3 Biodiversity
Paragraph 3: importance of Core Sustenance Zones:
Page 10 of London Wildlife Trust “Spaces Wild”
Paragraph 4 Importance of rear gardens and trees to habitat corridors
Page 20 of Ecology Network Bat Report for Redington Frognal Neighbourhood
Forum
Paragraph 6: Granted planning consents for building extensions and
garden building leading to loss of soft-surfaced garden area by street,
2010 – June 2016
Redington_Frognal_extension_2-1—2016.xlsx
This is appended to the email
Paragraph 7: Granted consents to excavate a total of 80 basements,
caused 307 trees and a number of hedgerows to be felled
Source: Redfrog based on Socrata from LB Camden
Clauses 6.80 and 6.81 Arboricultural reports to assess trees according to
their ability to support invertebrates and lichens
The Value of Different Tree Species for Invertebrates and Lichens
Transport Policy T1
Volume of school-run traffic
Page 3 of School-Run Traffic Submission to TfL by Church Row Residents