Dear Liam,
Following on from previous email I now have the following observations and questions for you in advance of a formal submission
Traffic The main concern of residents is the impact of the new estates on the volume of traffic with the 26 movements at peak hours, in particular, being questioned. Indeed, looking at the Transport appraisal at 4.2.2 you state that 37 properties would generate 26 movements, then at 4.2.5 you say 70 properties generate this figure. Q1 Please could you state which figure is correct and if it is the latter can you confirm that Powys CC has had a chance to respond to the corrected figure?
In the same report at 1.3.4 you reply on digital sources (Google maps and Streetview) to determine that there is no need for traffic calming due to available off-street parking. This however doesn't take into account limited visibility due to road curvature and hidden dips due to relief. Talking to residents they identified the following;
Many residents have more vehicles than parking spaces and park on road,
In winter a number of the houses with steep drives on the even side of the road park on the road as its unsafe to use the drives in frosty or snowy conditions,
Several residents reported near misses leaving their properties and most residents expressed perceived concerns about the speed of cars. On each of my 3 visits this weekend the number of on-road cars varied between 8 and 12 Q2 Will you consider a speed and vehicle count to determine current usage patterns?
Q3 Will you consider extended island type speed reduction levels (due to the age of residents speed bumps are likely to cause health issues)?
Also on vehicles in the table on 3.4.4 you columns for max and proposed spaces are the same. Q4 Could you provide a corrected copy of this table so it is possible to understand where the reduction of spaces occurs?
At 3.4.10 you make mention of cycle storage but don't explain how this would be facilitated Q5 please could you expand on this? Sewage The second most common concern applies to the use of the existing sewage network through Lakeside. Residents throughout the street but especially above No 18 reported regular visits from Welsh Water to unblock the main sewer pipes in recent years. One resident with technical knowledge highlighted that some of the pips used are pitch rather than hard clay in construction leading to pips becoming oval over time. There was concern that adding 70 properties onto the network while this persists could lead to significant backing up and more persistent blockage. Q6 Can you confirm what upgrades you would plan to the existing network if you are over doubling the load on most of it?
Further down residents report a regular need to rod their drains for backing up at the pumping station as it approaches capacity. Q7 can you guarantee that the additional load from the new build will not make this worse and potentially lead to flooding in properties at the foot of the road?
The pumping station itself has been reported to me as often operating at capacity. If this is exceeded the result would be flooding into the Mire and hence into Llandrindod Lake which would be a major incident with significant implications for the businesses that are reliant on the recreational use of the Lake Q8 can you confirm to me that you have had discussions with Welsh Water where they have confirmed that there is capacity at the station and there are contingencies in place to prevent contamination of the mire and Lake should your development proceed?
Given these concerns, it is almost certainly the case that the LDP reference to adequate foul drainage within the network refers to the far more recent sewers at the bottom end of the field serving the Ridgebourne estate. Q9 Can you explain why a link was not considered to this network and given the concerns raised here if you will consider a revision to the plans before submission to utilise this network instead of the Lakeside one in order particularly to remove the biodiversity and economic risk of contamination of the lake and wider Arlais catchment? Biodiversity A number of residents expressed concerns about the impact on Biodiversity and in particular the limited appraisal to day. I am in contact with a local Wildlife recorder and they have indicated a willingness to undertake a more detailed analysis of the site in early summer if they are allowed access. In addition to the fauna noted in the documentation the small herd of deer that has become established in the area have been sighted on the fields. A number of residents state fox, hedgehogs and badgers frequently use their properties and residents adjoining the south field have reported regular visits from toads and newts Q10 can you confirm when you state fencing will provide gaps that this includes fencing between the new estate and existing properties and will you consider including wildlife strips on boundaries with the existing estate to facilitate existing animal movements?
Finally, in this respect, you plan to place bird and bat nesting boxes on some properties but you have not specified the type of bird box nor the properties that they will be cited on Q11 please could you outline the type and locations? Access I note there is already an informal footway between the estate and Brynteg, the current plans are such that this is likely to now be accessed via the SUDS area and be relatively short. Q12 as part of this plan would you consider improving the surface and formalising the path by either dedicating it as a PROW or putting in a similar active travel link to facilitate safer access to the lake from that side of town?
Q13 On the opposite side concerns have been raised about the impact of the active travel route on existing residents what mitigations will you put in place to support these residents? Estate plans In general the mix of bedroom numbers is to be welcomed. However, I am concerned that the decision has been made to opt for houses on this site. The adjoining estate is entirely bungalows and a similar hillside site at Woodlands is also bungalows Given the fact these properties are on the skyline. Q14 Why did you opt not to design a site in keeping with the surrounding housing?
I plan to look at layout in more detail but for now I do have a couple of specific queries
Q15 The two properties nearest to existing households that are not on the same alignment are N36 and S34 both of these are 2 story dwelling. I welcome they are gable walls so not overlooking but why are they not bungalows that would be at a similar ridge height and would you consider changing them to bungalows for that reason?
Likewise S22 and 23 are sited with their frontages opposite a property on Lakeside and whilst set opposite a road will still overlook it. Q16 Why were bungalows rejected for this location?
For plot N10 the garage falls almost perfectly in line with the rear windows of Brynfa. However if it were located along the line of edge of the access closer to plot 9 it would be largely concealed behind a mature conifer. Q17 Would you consider making this realignment or undertaking a means of softening the impact on the adjoining property?
Climate Change mitigation
There are no specific details in the papers so far on climate change mitigations, the narrative talks about some form of onsite water storage but unlike other recent applications there is no visible indications of waterbutts which would reduce the need to water in the gardens nor of the use of heat pumps or solar panels on properties. Q18 What measures do you plan to put in place to mitigate the for the impacts of climate change and reduce energy demand within these properties?
Affordable Housing
Your initial proposals fall some way short of the local plan allocation for affordable housing as required within local planning guidance which should be 30% of the development. You cite economic factors but the housing market is buoyant in the area and new build of this nature is likely to command a premium and be unaffordable to many local residents. Could you therefore Q19 outline which properties you have already identified as being designated as affordable based on the masterplan?
Q20 Outline how those properties will enter the market in term of tenure?
Q21 If for sale what measure you will put in place to ensure they are available to members of the local community for purchase and no purchased to then rent?
Q22 What measure you will put in place to attempt to guarantee onward use at affordable rates?
Q23 If you plan to move them into the social rented sector who will be your preferred housing partner?
Construction Phase
Q24 What proposals will you be putting forward to planners in respect of access to the site for construction machinery and supply traffic during the construction phase? Specifically, do you expect access to be via the existing estate road or the field gate and track accessed via the Ridgebourne Quarry?
Q25 If accessed from Ridgebourne what mitigation steps to you plan to put in place for residents directly impacted by construction traffic entering and leaving the site.
I have still to meet with a number of the residents on the estate particularly in the houses between no37 and 59 so may be back in touch with further questions if they arise.
Yours
Cllr Pete Roberts