TESCO - Public Space Team comment

Cornwall Council Environment Service Transportation Waste and Environment Directorate








Public Space Team
Environment Service
Cornwall Council 
Western Group Centre, Room 99,
Radnor Road, Scorrier, TR16 5EH
Consultation for:              PA12/006664 Land east of barbican road East Looe
                                                Type: commercial /Mixed
Consultation to:               Stephan Kirby
Date of Request:              10 August 2012
Author/ respondent:      Nola O’Donnell CMLI
Date of Response:           26 Sept 2012 (rev A typos)


Position: objection, conditional – subject to :-


1. Recommendations:
Housing should face onto open space. Redesign is advised.
Please clarify the garden size for terraces. Several appear to be less than 50m2. If so then redesign scheme to ensure that no rear domestic gardens is less that 50m2. Further details are required.
The planting stock size structure should be proportionally higher for whips and feathered than for EHS trees.
With regard to the tree protection plan, dwg. No. AA TPP 04, further details are required. Please submit a section confirming change in level along the northern hedge boundary and its treatment in relation to tree roots.
Please submit photomontages for key views from east west and north.

2. Conditions should be applied to consent, if given:
That all ecological recommendations be addressed in a Landscape and Ecological Mitigation Plan subject to prior approval of the Councils chartered landscape architect.
That an open spaces and supermarket green infrastructure management plan be submitted for approval of the Councils chartered landscape architect.
That landscape reinforcement enhancement works to north east and southern boundaries is completed prior to the removal of the western hedgerow.
That an ecological clerk of works be appointed.

Grounds for position:

Land value: Grade 2 Best and Most Versatile
The site is ALC grade 2 land. Grades BMV 1, 2 and 3a are valuable national resources. The NE guidance TIN049 - Agricultural Land Classification: protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land recommends site level assessment to ascertain whether the site is BMV or grade 3b. For this it in usual to examine soil (by soil auger tests - soil type, depth and condition), temperature and growing season, slope gradient, recorded rainfall, drainage and recorded yields.

Landscape designations: moderate adverse impact
In AGLV Looe & Seaton Valley and close to AONB and Heritage Coast –Gribben Head to Polperro which lies to the south. The site is of moderate to high sensitivity. Adverse impact on setting from east looking towards west to AONB.

Landscape Character: moderate adverse impact
The site is within C22 South East Cornwall Plateau, a strong, beautiful, tranquil area along the coast. All development need to address the following: The vision objective set out is to restrain development along the coast and encourage the retention and restoration of its wild landscape character whilst inland supporting the balance of agricultural use”. The planning guidance requires the development of village plans to ensure that in new rural/village development curtilages are of appropriate materials and planting echoes locally indigenous species.

Proposals are contrary to NPPF: The proposals are not “without detriment to the landscape character” as stated in LVIA pages 1 and 17 as they would require destruction of key landscape feature, the loss in its entirety of the western hedgerow is not supported. It is both aesthetically a key landscape character feature, and ecologically important as indicated in the ecological surveys report submitted and clearly illustrated in photographs 3 and 4.

Design Issues
The positioning of public open space to the side of housing is not desirable. Redesign is recommended so the housing fronts onto open space.

Boundaries for residential plots should ideally take its cue from the existing stone walling along the Barbican road. The provision of new Cornish hedges within a new urban residential context are likely to be inappropriate, provide poor security and seldom work unless there are afforded correct height to base ratio, a substantial buffer, allowed to become fully clothed in natural vegetation and are protected from over zealous manicuring.

The proposed housing / garaging is too close to the existing northern boundary. This would potentially impact the stated intention to retain the hedgerow and trees. The housing should be pulled back so that construction will not impinge either the crown or root spread of the trees. The plan shows a rotary clothes line under the canopy of tress- this is not suitable.

It is advised that the provision of mitigation Cornish hedging should be confined to the supermarket development and or as boundary treatment to the land set aside for community use with tree planting to be managed to allow full canopy development.

The proposal to plant a new landscape corridor extending from the south-western edge to the centre of the site is welcome. It is accepted that the detail for Cornish earthbank fronting the highway would be an appropriate design for the character of the area. The cross section detail and the planting plant are accepted as appropriate. It will assist in breaking up the built form thereby reducing visual impact over time. The success or failure of this will depend on the quality of specification detailing plant stock and aftercare. The proposal for significant cut is questionable notwithstanding the desire to recess the development into the landform. How is the excavated material to be disposed? or please clarify if it is to be re-used in some way on site?

Visual amenity impact: high adverse impact; significant.
The photographic submission illustrates the high value of the western boundary hedgerow. Ph 5, 6 and 7 are contrived images yet still illustrate the fully vegetated hedgerow. Photo 8 does should built form however its failure to properly relate to its rural setting by providing a frontage of amenity grass and stark rendered walling ought not be used as a precedent for further environmental degradation. The positive use of coursed stone walling would be a useful cue for new developments. 

Photo 9 and 10 show a suburban character. Photo 10 illustrates poor design and interpretation of the sub- rural context creating a sterile bleak environment. The site is highly visible from the north and east The photographs 13, 14 and 15 indicate how the new development would appear disconnected, distinct and isolated in relation to Looe. Tree planting through the site could alleviate this over time. Planting plans should provide a higher proportion of whip and feathered size stock in relation to extra heavy standards. Furthermore the use of biodiverse roof cladding would also greatly mitigate the impact of the retail shed for distant view from the east.

It may be better if there were separation of pedestrians from the main road by placing the vegetation strip adjacent to the carriageway and place the footpath beside the Cornish bank.
continued . . .

Ecological impact: high adverse impact; significant
Contrary to NPPF and Cornwall Structure plan. A major bat route would be obliterated by the proposal as submitted. Retention should be re-considered. The ecological recommendations are not explicitly cited in the landscape plan. There should be direct explicit correlation. There is a failure to capitalise on roof space for biodiversity gain by incorporation of a green/ biodiverse roof ref.: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/91970.aspx. Green roofs are accepted as green infrastructure elements and could easily be designed in tandem with solar PVs.

Site & key vantage points visit: 5 September 2012 
List of documents reviewed:page2image39376
LVIA & associated photographs and illustrative drawings and plans
Ecological report & associated drawings and plans

Additional information in Support of Summary
Visual amenity impact 1 :
Approach from north along Barbican road.



All images are Googlemap (image dates 2009 ) unless otherwise stated –extracted on 26 Sept 2012.These images show the position and orientation of the photograph and are taken at a height of 2.5m. They are not definitive evidence but are used in this report as indicative illustration of typical of landscape character and likely visibility when either a site visit was not possible or when weather conditions were unsuitable for taking of photographs. Actual viewpoints and photomontages should be taken at average person height and not at 2.5m