2013/0120
Heart of England
Conference and Events Centre/Adventure Park
Meriden Road, Chapel Green, Fillongley, near Coventry CV7 8DX
Planning, Design and Access Statement for the Replacement of
Former Pump House to Cover the Pumping and Electrical
Equipment on the Lake Island
NORTH WARWICKSHIRE
BOROUGH COUNCIL
RECEIVED
6-Mar-13
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION
Mark Singlehurst, BA (Hons), DipTP
For Alder Mill Planning and Design Consultancy, Atherstone
March 2013
1.0
Introduction: Location, Background and Planning History
1.1
The Heart of England Conference and Events Centre was established on the site of the
former Old Hall Farm at Chapel Green, Fillongley following the sale of the property and its
associated farmland and woodland by the Bond’s Hospital Charity in February 2001. The site
had previously belonged to the charity for almost 500 years and included the grade II listed farm
house (Old Fillongley Hall) and 83.6 acres of arable farmland and 67.33 acres of mixed
woodland (the greater part of Birchley Hays Wood). Planning permission for recreational use of
first the northern and later the southern part of the former farmland was granted in 2004 and
2008 (FAP/2002/7800 and PAP/2007/0503). The latter involved the creation of a new lake and
wetland area (with an island) for use by water and other sports in association with the
recreational use of the land.
1.2
The site is located to the south-east of the B4102 (Meriden Road), adjacent to the hamlet
of Chapel Green, between Fillongley and Meriden, near to the M6 motorway. The site lies within
the Green Belt known as the ‘Meriden Gap’, which separates the city of Coventry and the towns
of Bedworth and Nuneaton from the Birmingham conurbation. Warwickshire County Council’s
Arden Landscapes Guidelines identify the area covered by the Heart of England site as ‘Ancient
Arden’, characterized by a varied, undulating topography; a network of winding lanes and
trackways, often confined by tall hedgebanks; an ancient, irregular pattern of small to medium
sized fields; hedgerow and roadside oaks, field ponds associated with permanent pasture and
many place-names ending in ‘Green’ or ‘End’. This is certainly an apt description of the
landscape at Chapel Green and around the Heart of England site.
1.3
When the lake was being constructed in 2009, the site owner experienced a decline in
income from his conference and events business due to the economic downturn and decided to
add an inland beach and seaside-themed attraction to the lake to encourage the general public to
visit the site. The latter theme included the erection of a mini tower superstructure (designed to
resemble a miniature lighthouse) over the pumping and electrical equipment on the lake island
that controlled the lake fountains and the water levels and purity. Planning permission was not,
however, sought for these developments at the time and retrospective applications to retain the
beach and rockery (PAP/2009/0326) and the pump house on the lake island (PAP/2009/0325)
were refused. Appeals were lodged against these decisions on 29-30 March 2010
(APP/R3705/A/10/2125774 and 2125716 respectively) but were dismissed on 21 December
2010.
1.4
In the meantime, Enforcement Notices were issued with effect from 6 August 2010
(beach and rockery) and 6 May 2011 (pump house), requiring the removal of these features from
the site, but appeals against these notices were also lodged on 3 August 2010
(APP/R3705/C/10/2133811) and 5 May 2011 (2152369) respectively. These appeals were also
dismissed on 17 October 2012. In the case of the pump house, the main points of contention
leading to the refusal of planning permission and dismissal of both appeals were the incongruity
of the ‘lighthouse theme’ in the Arden landscape and issues of design, size and visual
prominence leading to perceived harm to the openness and character of the Green Belt in this
location. These matters are discussed in greater detail in the ‘Design Considerations’ section
below.
1.5
Despite the above, it was always acknowledged by both the Borough Council and the
Inspectors that some form of covering to the pumping and electrical equipment on the island was
necessary and acceptable, so long as it was of the minimum possible size and height and
otherwise designed to have minimal adverse impact upon the surrounding landscape. This is
evidenced by paragraph 49 of the 21/12/2010 Planning Appeals Decision and also implied by the
2
comments made about the plant room (which was allowed on appeal) in paragraph 50. Similar
comments are made in paragraph 216 of the 17/10/2012 Enforcement Appeals Decision and the
Council’s Statement of Case for the two 2011 enforcement notice appeals (May 2012),
paragraphs 8.1 and 8.7.
1.6
The tower superstructure over the pumping equipment has now been removed and the
equipment it contained has been retained under temporary cover. The present planning
application seeks to provide a further design for the housing which can fit with the requirement
to be “of the minimum size necessary” and “sufficiently unobtrusive to fit into its surroundings”
as required by the Planning Inspectors.
2.0
Description of the Proposed Development
2.1
The new design for the pump house is a low timber shed with a pitched roof, surrounded
up to eaves height by boulders (existing rocks re-used from the base of the ‘lighthouse’
structure). It is proposed that the walls be faced with 225 mm deep horizontal timber boarding
and the roof covered with wooden shingles. There would be no windows, but a single louvered
timber door on the front elevation (facing inwards across the island lengthwise; that is, to the
north-east). The dimensions would be as follows: 2.16 metres wide and deep (square footprint),
2.55 metres high to the apex of the roof and falling to 1.0 metres at the bottom of the roof slopes,
with the walls about 1.2 metres high to the eaves and the boulders rising for a metre or so round
three sides (except for the entrance side). The curving ‘breather pipe’ rises from the roof to a
height of 2.8 metres. These dimensions should be compared with those of the ‘lighthouse’
structure and the earlier rejected schemes as detailed in the ‘Design Considerations’ section
below.
2.2
The water tank, pump, pipes and electrical cabinet have been re-organized to fit within
this reduced height structure, which is considered to be the lowest that can be achieved to
accommodate the necessary equipment in a satisfactory arrangement. The structure would
occupy the same location and footprint as the original ‘lighthouse’ structure.
3.0
Design Considerations
3.1
The new design is considered to achieve the best possible compromise between
something that could be considered too ‘box-like’ or utilitarian on the one hand and overelaborate or ornamental on the other hand. It uses natural materials and a traditional form but is
also designed to be as low and unobtrusive as possible. The boulders are used to further reduce
its impact and the recent tree planting will also help to make it even less noticeable as they grow
taller and spread outwards and dominate the island instead of the pump house structure.
3.2
This is the latest in a series of designs that have been prepared in an attempt to provide a
covering for the pumping and electrical equipment that is both adequate from a practical and
functional standpoint and also visually satisfactory, given the prominent location on the lake
island.
Details of previous schemes for comparison
3.3
The original pump house structure (shown on the drawing 180/27/7 of July 2009 – see
Appendix 1) was, initially, painted white. It was first erected at some point between 30/4/2009
and 23/6/2009 (from photographic evidence). It was 6.8 metres high, with a footprint of 2.17 by
3
2.16 metres at the base (an area of 4.687 square metres), a 1.2 metre wide funnel section and a
‘lantern’ 1.4 metres wide beneath an octagonal tapering cap. The base section was 2.56 metres
high. Red stripes were added later in July 2009, which were included on the ‘Revision B’
drawing of 14/11/2009. At the same time, an electrical plant room was constructed on the land at
the south-east corner of the old farm pond. This was a simple and very functional, box-like
structure, faced in “fair faced blockwork” with a very slight mono-pitch to the almost flat roof, a
door on the east elevation and a timber-boarded lower box structure attached to the west wall.
The footprint was 1.92 by 1.72 metres and the height varied between 2.18 and 2.22 metres. The
little box on the west side was 0.72 by 1.15 metres and just 1.1 metres high at the top of its
shallow mono-pitched roof.
The pump house as originally constructed (photograph taken 1st July 2009)
The pump house with the red stripes added (photograph taken 22nd July 2009)
3.4
The retrospective application of 13/7/2009 (PAP/2009/0325) to retain both structures was
refused on 17/11/2009 on the grounds that the pump house was of such a size and appearance as
to be an “incongruous feature in the rural landscape” and “detrimental to the area”. At the
subsequent Planning Appeals hearing in early September 2010, the officer putting forward the
Council’s case argued that the pump house was overly large, above what was functionally
required, highly visible, attention-seeking, alien and “garish” in design. It did not positively
integrate into its surroundings and its colouring did not preserve or enhance local distinctiveness.
The Inspector’s Decision of 21/12/2010 concluded that the pump house was “highly conspicuous
from much of the site, including the two public footpaths”, “an intrusive and inappropriate
landscape element”, an “incongruous feature within the site”; and he did not believe that tree
planting could adequately mitigate its adverse visual impact (paragraphs 47-48).
4
3.5
An alternative structure, designed to scale down the pump house and remove the
offending ‘lighthouse’ (upper) portion, was introduced during the hiatus between the second and
third days of the appeal hearing. This was the ‘Revision C’ scheme of 20/9/2010 (see Appendix
1). The new design was very similar to the plant room, being a flat roofed box of the same
footprint as the original and 2.71 metres high overall. It had timber boarded walls, double
louvered doors on the north-east elevation and a white fibre glass roof fascia. In essence, this
was the existing base section of the ‘lighthouse’ superstructure with all the upper elements
removed. It was higher than the plant room by 0.49 metres and about 0.25 metres longer.
Nevertheless, it was criticized in an e-mail from the planning officer on the grounds that a flatroofed, wood-faced, functional structure would be “unattractive” and “visually intrusive” and
would still appear as an “alien feature” in the landscape when seen in short-range views from the
two public footpaths (M292 and M293) that traverse the Heart of England site. On the third day
of the Hearing the expressed opinion of the Council was that the structure had simply been
changed from a ‘lighthouse’ to a ‘shed’, a building of “no particular design merit” and still of
“fairly substantial proportions”. Officers would be looking for something of improved design
quality, and were prepared to consider a structure at the minimum size necessary to adequately
house the pumps and related equipment.
3.6
The opinion of the Inspector was likewise that the alternative design, although
“undoubtedly less conspicuous”, was still a “prominent feature on the island” with a “box-like,
utilitarian appearance which would detract from the otherwise natural character of the island”
(although the island is actually a man-made, artificial feature with mown grass and other
introduced planting and rocks). He accepted the need for “some sort of structure to house the
equipment that maintains water levels and quality” but considered that, given the island’s visual
prominence, the structure should be the minimum size necessary to accommodate the equipment.
He concluded that even the reduced “alternative design” would be “appreciably larger than
required to house the pumps and associated equipment”. The need for the pump house, in its
amended form, did not outweigh “the detrimental impact on the landscape of this prominent,
utilitarian structure” (paragraphs 48-49).
3.7
By contrast, however, he considered that the lakeside plant room was a small, simple,
functional building serving a necessary purpose, “sufficiently unobtrusive to fit into its
surroundings”, and so granted planning permission for it (paragraphs 50-51). Given that the plant
room was only slightly smaller than the ‘Revision C’ pump house design and even more
utilitarian in appearance, one must assume that the key deciding factor here was location. The
plant room, although certainly conspicuous from the track running to the north-west of the lake,
alongside which it is situated, is overshadowed by trees bordering the large pond and so is not
seen in the context of the open landscape from all sides, as is the case with the island pump
house.
3.8
The ‘Revision D’ scheme was a modification of a design for the pump house at Ansty
Golf Course and sought to address the criticism of the earlier designs as being incongruous, boxlike and utilitarian in appearance. This was introduced as an alternative approach during the
Enforcement Appeal process (see drawing dated 5/5/2011 in Appendix 1). This design was more
ornamental and traditional in character, using a mixture of red brickwork and natural stone, with
a pyramidal plain clay tiled roof. It was thought that such materials would provide more natural
colours and textures that would not stand out from a distance. At 3.728 metres to the apex of its
pyramidal roof and 2.35 metres to the eaves, it was over 2.7 metres lower than the existing
structure, although clearly a metre higher than the ‘C’ scheme. The eaves (walls) height was
similar to that of the approved electrical plant room. Louvered doors (now with an arched head)
again provided the necessary ventilation. The 9.168 m2 footprint (3.028 metres square) was
5
deemed large enough to allow adequate access for operation, inspection and maintenance, but
was clearly nearly twice as large as the existing area of 4.687 m2.
3.9
The planning officer (in an e-mail dated 11/11/2011) indicated that the new design was
also regarded as highly conspicuous and out of character with its setting. As the planning appeals
inspector had considered a height of even 2.7 metres to be “appreciably larger than required”, the
3.728-metre overall height was criticized as not meeting the requirement to be “the minimum
size necessary”. The Inspector’s Decision after the Public Inquiry into the Enforcement Appeals,
issued on 17/10/2012, was that the alternative design, whilst attractive, would still be a
“conspicuous intrusion into the landscape” because of its significant height and elaborate design.
He was not persuaded that it was the minimum size necessary and felt that it would not
“adequately resolve the harm to amenity” (paragraphs 221-222).
3.10 Further designs were considered ‘in-house’: revisions ‘E’ and ‘F’ were never formally
submitted (‘F’ was taken to the Public Inquiry but not, in the event, actually put forward to the
Inspector), but are included in Appendix 1 to demonstrate that efforts were still being made to
find a satisfactory solution. The ‘E’ scheme (12/5/2011) involved burying the pump house under
a grassy earth mound, but it was decided that the resulting artificial ‘hump’ on the island might
look natural in materials but would not look natural in form. The ‘F’ scheme (3/9/2012) returned
to timber boarded walls and grey fibre glass roofing, but it reduced the depth of the building to
just 1.08 metres and introduced a gabled form with a double-pitched roof. The length and overall
height remained at 2.17 and 2.75 metres respectively, however (walls 1.97 metres high to the
eaves), and it was felt that the structure would rather resemble a sentry box from the south-east
and north-west sides, so this scheme was also abandoned. A revision ‘G’ of 5/11/2012 was
rejected as being too similar to the scheme ‘C’ dismissed by the planning appeals inspector.
Revision ‘H’ was the same as the proposed scheme ‘I’, but showed horizontal timber boarding
instead of shingles on the roof slopes.
Description and design philosophy of the new scheme
3.11 The new scheme (Revision ‘I’) is described at paragraphs 2.1-2 above. In terms of height
and roof shape, this has been fitted around the necessary equipment as closely as possible. The
steeply pitched roof reaches a maximum height of 2.55 metres at the apex, a reduction of 0.17
metres on the ‘C’ scheme, but – unlike the ‘C’ scheme – this drops down to just 1.047 metres at
the bottom of the roof slopes. Compared with the plant room, which the planning inspector
judged to fit the criterion of being “the minimum size necessary”, only a triangle of 0.72 metres
wide by 0.32 metres high at the apex of the roof would exceed the height reached by the
permitted plant room.
3.12 Although the Inspector at the Public Inquiry into the enforcement appeals talked about
small ‘public utility’ cabinets maintained from the outside, these are generally low voltage
telecommunications/switchgear cabinets found on street corners. A pump house is an entirely
different thing. Whilst it might be practical to house small domestic water pumps in a cabinetlike structure, in this case the tank and pump need to be large enough to cope with the volume of
water in a lake. The tank also needs some depth to allow sediment to be separated from the water
that passes through it. Whilst it has been possible to re-arrange most of the piping to surround the
tank itself (with the exception of the breather pipe), the tank and pump themselves are about 2.08
metres high. This is high enough to allow an adult to enter the enclosure standing up and it is
reasonable that the enclosure should be large enough to enable operators and maintenance
personnel to access the equipment in a reasonably sheltered and dry environment, to have space
to place tools down, make notes, move equipment if necessary and so on.
6
3.13 If the weather was inclement, for example, it would not be reasonable to expect
maintenance or even routine monitoring to be carried out on large plant or a high voltage
electrical cabinet whilst kneeling in the mud in the pouring rain or snow. Although pumping
stations and pump houses come in many different shapes and sizes and serve a variety of
purposes, they are almost invariably proper buildings, not cabinets. Such guidance on pump
house construction as may be found online does indicate that (for example) “size and headroom
of the pumping station building should allow for lifting/transversing of the pumps for
maintenance purposes” and the building envelope “should be designed to facilitate future
maintaining and cleaning by ordinary means of access”.
3.14 The book Pumping Station Design (3rd edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008; edited by
Garr M. Jones) advises that “sufficient access and working space is required for ready and safe
access for maintenance” of electrical equipment (page 8.26). Where engines are used to power
pumping equipment, adequate ventilation is important (page 14.20). In designing an efficient
pump room layout, dimensions should be kept to the minimum required but “without sacrificing
optimum machine performance or personnel access for operation and maintenance of the
equipment” (page 17.8) It recommends leaving adequate clearance (such as 0.9 to 1.1 metres)
from the outside edge of all piping flanges or other projections on at least three sides of each
pump and any discharge valving, whilst ventilation provision must ensure that “air can be moved
through the room efficiently to prevent the accumulation of odours and moisture condensation”.
3.15 As for architectural treatment, “the architect must bear in mind the clearances required
for equipment operation and removal and maintenance access” (page 17.9). Heating, ventilation
and cooling must be included “to facilitate the safe and efficient performance of operating and
maintenance personnel; to minimize the deterioration of the equipment, controls and structure”
and “to promote community acceptance of the station by helping to control noise and odour
emissions” (page 23.1). Good ventilation helps to maintain a benign, dry environment for
mechanical and electrical equipment, prevent poisonous bacterial growth under anaerobic
conditions, whilst some degree of heating may be required to protect equipment from corrosion
and freezing (page 23.3). Whilst it is recognized that such books are geared towards larger-scale
operations, the general principles should hold good for smaller systems, with a corresponding
allowance for reduced scale access, circulation and ventilation requirements.
3.16 Accordingly, the new design includes a louvered door for ventilation, but also sites the
tank and pump against the back wall where a heat lamp is provided, to discourage freezing.
Modest clearance is provided to either side of the tank and piping, and sufficient space is allowed
in front to access the wall-mounted electrics cabinet. A container is provided for tool storage.
The maximum width of free space within the pump house structure is a mere 1.46 metres (4 feet
9.5 inches), which is hardly excessive.
3.17 The external envelope seeks to achieve the difficult balance between simplicity and
unobtrusiveness, on the one hand, and an acceptable visual appearance on the other. It is
therefore proposed that the building be clad in natural, horizontal timber boarding, with wooden
shingles on the roof slopes and simple timber bargeboards to the gables, plus a wooden single
door with louvered panels. A semi-circular surround of red sandstone boulders on three sides
will help to screen the building further. They are shown to eaves height on the drawing, but
could be stacked a little higher or combined with planting to achieve a greater degree of
screening if desired.
3.18 The internal arrangement includes the tank that assists in controlling the lake water level
and removal of excess sediment, the inlet and outflow piping, a high pressure pump to operate
the fountains in the lake (which themselves assist in aerating the water and preventing any
7
stagnation) and a 240-volt electrics cabinet associated with powering the pump. There is also a
low pressure pump at the front of the lake that feeds the tank, all the mechanical equipment
being powered electronically. The inlet and outflow of water is continuous, with water remaining
in the tank only long enough to allow the larger particles of sediment to settle for periodic
drainage. The curve in the top of the breather pipe (externally) is necessary to stop air pressure
building up within the tank.
3.19 The prevalence of pump houses of various kinds in connection with lakes and
countryside locations has been previously explored in connection with the enforcement appeals
process. The writer has also noted the presence of pump houses in a number of country parks
around Great Britain, such as those at Sywell Country Park, Northamptonshire; Brandon, Clare
and West Stow Country Parks, Suffolk; Granville Country Park, Shropshire; Whitlingham
Country Park, Norfolk; and Gartmorn Dam Country Park, Clackmannshire (Scotland). Some of
these are illustrated in Appendix 2. Whilst this does not, per se, justify the need for a pump
house of reasonable size at the Heart of England adventure park, it does demonstrate that pump
houses of classic design in country park settings are by no means necessarily “incongruous” in
themselves.
4.0
Conclusions
4.1
It is therefore submitted that the latest proposed design for the pump house represents a
sensible compromise between functional/health and safety requirements and the need to reduce
the massing to the minimum necessary size. It has also sought to balance unobtrusiveness with a
traditional design and good aesthetics in a countryside setting. In size, materials and design it
compares favourably with the very utilitarian plant room building which the planning appeals
inspector deemed to be inoffensive. Unlike the ‘lighthouse’ structure that it seeks to replace, it is
considered that the new scheme is not unduly prominent or incongruous within the rural
landscape; rather, it should blend with the established character of the lake, park and surrounding
countryside. It is of comparable massing but superior design to the permitted plant room, which
is also within the Green Belt but has much less screening.
4.2
For all the reasons argued above, it is believed that the new design does not run contrary
to North Warwickshire Local Plan policies CP3 and ENV13, or the Green Belt policies
contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. Accordingly, it is requested that
planning permission be granted for this proposal, subject to such conditions or negotiated design
adjustments as the Local Planning Authority may deem necessary to ensure satisfactory
implementation of the scheme.
Mark Singlehurst
For Alder Mill
5th March 2013
8