Application Reference No – SMD/2016/0600
Site Address: Land Off Blythe Bridge Road, Caverswall, Staffordshire
Comments by: Mr L Owen
From: Caverswall Objection ‐ Response to SMDC's Arboricultural Officers report.
I have a number of concerns in relation to Steve Massey Arboricultural Officer's report and question whether some of the comments made by Steve Massey within his report are within his professional and technical remit to do so, in particular many of the comments made by Steve Massey Arboricultural Officer within his report are in complete contradiction to that of SMDC's Senior Conservation Officer whose comments/report must bear significantly more weight in this regard.
My concerns are as follows:‐
Steve Massey Arboricultural Officer States within his report:‐ 'The existing hedgerows – along site boundaries and one bisecting the site – would largely be retained. The exceptions to this would be: a short stretch of Hedgerow H3 to widen the existing field access at the north‐west corner of the site (for proposed Plots 1 and 2); a further section of H3 to create the main new site access point off Blythe Bridge Road; and the widening of an existing gap/gateway within H2 where the site road would expand into the shared parking area. Collectively, the loss of these short amounts of existing field hedgerow would not in itself have a significant detrimental impact on amenity, and could (and would) be readily mitigated by new native hedgerow planting as part of the site landscaping scheme in the event that the development goes ahead.'
I'd like to draw the Planning Officers attention to SMDC's Senior Conservation Officers report which confirms:‐
'Until recently the roadside boundary to these fields contained an important historic entrance marked by stone gate piers and elaborate wrought‐iron gate. This was removed without planning permission and the entrance has now been widened. Historic maps show that this was an historic route to the village and remains a pubic footpath. An enforcement case is still open.'
Steve Massey Arboricultural Officer States within his report:‐ ‘In basic visual effect, the proposal could be considered as in‐fill between existing developed areas.’
These fields sit outside of the village boundary therefore this development cannot be considered as 'in‐fill'. SMDC's Senior Conservation Officer States within the Conservation Report:‐
'The Heritage Statement states that this is an infill site linking existing areas of residential development. I strongly disagree – the open break is essential in defining the historic core of the village and reinforces its historic agricultural setting.'
Steve Massey Arboricultural Officer States within his report:‐ As viewed from the road alongside the site, and from the south‐eastern part of St Peter’s churchyard, clearly the proposal would result in a fundamental change in the landscape character of the application site itself from agricultural fields to residential; however, this is the case with any such development on greenfield land. This site is not just 'greenfield land', and can be viewed by numerous listed buildings within close proximity to this site, SMDC's Senior Conservation Officer confirms within the Conservation Report:‐
'The site is within the Caverswall Conservation Area and includes part of the extant medieval field system where long linear fields run right through to the road. On the opposite side of the road is a cluster of Listed Buildings including Dove Farm and farm buildings, St Peter’s Church (with Listed boundary and notable funerary monuments) and Caverswall Castle to the rear.
The fields which are subject to this application are important to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area: 




They help reinforce the rural character of the village with the medieval field system running through to the road 
They provide a visual break between the later ribbon development on Blythe Bridge Road to help reinforce the historic core and form of the village
They provide an open, agricultural setting to Dove Farm 
They provide an open, attractive approach to the historic village and setting of several Listed Buildings. Open views out of the Conservation Area are also significant.
They contain significant historic trackways which are still public rights of way. These provide significant public views into and out of the Conservation Area
The proposed development would represent substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Caverswall Conservation Area and setting of nearby Listed Buildings. As such it is contrary to Section 72 which creates a strong presumption in favour of the preservation of Conservation Areas and their setting and requires that considerable weight be given to the desirability of preservation. Section 66: In assessing planning applications the LPA has a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings and their setting. In addition, Footnote 9 of Para.14 of the NPPF states that harm to designated heritage assets and their setting triggers the statutory presumption in favour of sustainable development.'
Steve Massey Arboricultural Officer goes on to state within his report:‐ 'This is the receptor location on which there would be greatest visual impact arising from the scheme, although to some extent this would be lessened by retention of the majority of the frontage hedgerow (which could be left to grow taller as noted in the application documents) with only two access points serving the development, together with scope to accommodate a reasonably significant amount of new planting in association with the proposed diverted public footpath and within the generously sized front gardens. The residual impact here would be judged moderate adverse.'
SMDC's Senior Conservation Officer confirms within the Conservation Report:‐
'The Heritage Statement in the table states that ‘due to the existing hedge and its relationship to Blythe Bridge Rad in its current form the proposed development will visually contribute little to the character and appearance of the conservation area in its present form’. I strongly disagree with this statement.
The Heritage Statement acknowledges that the development will be visible from St Peter’s Church and its curtilage, and other heritage assets but it states that the character of the development will not diminish their importance. I strongly disagree with this statement.
The Heritage Statement concludes that the development will have no direct impact on nearby Listed Buildings. I disagree with this statement. The Listed farmstead at Dove Farm lie opposite and St Peter’s Church (and churchyard) is also viewed in conjunction with the site. The loss of the agricultural setting is harmful.' Steve Massey Arboricultural Officer goes on to state within his report:‐ From further north on Blythe Bridge Road within the main part of the village, and also from further south on this road, the proposal would be largely screened from view by existing development until nearly alongside the site itself. Residual impact following landscape establishment is judged slight adverse.
Commenting on the fields where the proposed development would be sighted, SMDC's Senior Conservation Officer confirms within the Conservation Report:‐
'They provide an open, attractive approach to the historic village and setting of several Listed Buildings. Open views out of the Conservation Area are also significant.'
In summarising his report Steve Massey Arboricultural Officer States:‐ 'On balance, I consider that the basic visual impact of the proposal, ranging from neutral to moderate adverse with, inevitably, the greatest such impact arising directly adjacent to the site, would not alone be sufficiently harmful to substantiate in‐principle objection to or refusal of the application.'
Finally I would like to draw your attention to SMDC's Senior Conservation Officers report which confirms:‐
'The proposed development would represent substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Caverswall Conservation Area and setting of nearby Listed Buildings. As such it is contrary to Section 72 which creates a strong presumption in favour of the preservation of Conservation Areas and their setting and requires that considerable weight be given to the desirability of preservation. Section 66: In assessing planning applications the LPA has a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings and their setting. In addition, Footnote 9 of Para.14 of the NPPF states that harm to designated heritage assets and their setting triggers the statutory presumption in favour of sustainable development.'
I therefore ask that the comments made by Steve Massey Arboricultural Officer with his report which are set out above, are disregarded and those of SMDC’s Senior Conservation Officer are taken as a true and accurate reflection of the catastrophic impact and substantial harm this proposed development would have on the Caverswall Conservation Area and village of Caverswall as a whole.