RESPONSE TO DRAFT LOCAL PLAN (REGULATION 18)

AND SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL FOR THE DRAFT LOCAL PLAN.

Your details (please give full contact details)

Name Dr Emy Lucassen

Company/organisation (if

relevant)

Are you responding as an

individual or organisation,

or as an agent on behalf of

somebody else?

As an individual

Email address

Postal address

Town Cranbrook

Post Code

Telephone Number

RESPONSE TO POLICY AL/CRS7

Land off Golford Road (SHELAA reference: Late Site 32)

This is incorrectly described as ‘Land off of Waterloo Road’ in the sustainability

appraisal 1 and in the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment

for Draft Local Plan2

Background and context

CRS7 is in an AONB outside and is detached from the LBD in Cranbrook. It is an

extraordinarily beautiful spot, much loved by dog walkers and ramblers, traversed by

2 public rights of way, one of which forms part of the High Weald Landscape Trail

(145 km from Horsham to Rye).

We have lived in Golford Road since 2009. Our property faces the agricultural land in

question and is the closest property to its access point via the lane to the Sewage

Works.

Basis of Objection

We object to the development at CRS7. Our objections are based primarily on the

suitability of building houses adjacent to an already overstretched Sewage Works, on

environmental grounds, and on road safety grounds.

In addition, the proposed development contravenes several TWBC core policies and

assessments.

While we accept that the UK needs new houses, we cannot see that building houses

adjacent to a Sewage Works, which is already so overwhelmed that it regularly

floods adjacent houses with sewage, can be sustainable or desirable.

Suitability of site next to Sewage works

CRS7 is immediately adjacent to Cranbrook Sewage Works, which services all of

Cranbrook’s effluent, a permitted population of 9995 from properties in Cranbrook

and surrounds3. These Sewage Works were located outside the limits of built

development for good reasons. Within the various planning documents, it is

acknowledged that ‘plants for treatment of waste should be constructed as far

removed from human habitation as possible.’

As Cranbrook expanded, the Sewage Works have struggled to keep pace, and the

resultant smells and noise are well documented. When Cranbrook Sewage Works

1 Sustainability Appraisal of the Draft Local Plan for Regulation 18 Consultation September 2019 -

p186 2 Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment for Draft Local Plan July 2019.

3 Planning application 12/02168 – supporting statement.

applied for planning permission to process 20,000 gallons of industrial waste per

week (brought in by tankers), local residents and the two local schools (Cranbrook

School and Dulwich Prep) raised the issues of the already existent smells, noise, and

traffic problems. Nevertheless planning permission was granted, but a subsequent

application for expansion was rejected. TWBC acknowledged the already existent

smells, noise, and traffic problems and raised objections including the likely

problems of water pollution and odour arising from intensified use4. These

objections by TWBC are just as relevant to the plans under scrutiny here.

Our neighbours regularly have sewage from the Sewage Works flooding their

property. They have raised the issue at every opportunity, and well before CRS7 was

submitted, out of concern about the other planned new buildings elsewhere in

Cranbrook eg in 2013, one neighbour submitted ‘The sewage facilities are at present

inadequate for Cranbrook. We are the last household before the sewage works and

have had overflows up our manholes running into sheds and over property - back

and front garden.’ I use this example because it includes the response from Southern

Water: ‘Southern Water has limited powers to prevent connections. This is the case

even when there is insufficient capacity in the sewers resulting in unacceptable

levels of service such as sewer flooding.’5

If sewage flooding into properties is unavoidable, we object to inflicting the same

fate on another 150 households.

Environmental impact

Treated water from Cranbrook Sewage Works discharges directly into the Crane

Brook, which borders CRS7 to the North, where the site is in Environment Agency's

Flood Zone 3b (i.e. it is a functional floodplain, defined as land where water has to

flow or be stored in times of flood). The field floods every year and remains under

water for much of the winter.

4 Planning application 93/1090 – objections.

5 http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/ data/assets/pdf_file/0010/39871/Response-Report-

7_Chapter-6-Cranbrook.pdf

Regular flooding of CRS7 with

water and sewage. This is early

October.

Assuming that the houses will not be built on the actual floodplain, they will be built

above the floodplain where the field slopes up towards Golford Road. This will

inevitably increase flooding, as the built up area will soak up less rainwater than the

agricultural field currently does, and this water can only run down into the floodplain.

At the same time, the Sewage Works will have to increase its capacity by 20-40% to

cope with the additional housing6. The staff at Cranbrook Sewage Works were

unaware of the planned development. They are able to process 30L/s which is

already exceeded regularly (often 75L/s) necessitating the use of overflow tanks.

When this system is overwhelmed, discharges of screened sewage (untreated but

inspected for unsightly debris) into the stream are allowed.

As well as flooding local properties, flooding adjacent to the Sewage Works has a

detrimental environmental impact, for example, in September 2010 raw sewage was

discharged into Crane Brook resulting in ‘275 dead fish in the area immediately

downstream of the works’. When Environment Agency scientists were called in, they

observed the impact 6 miles downstream, in Biddenden. In the ensuing court case,

Southern Water attributed the incident to heavy rain ‘when screens that normally

filter debris from the waste water become blocked.’7

Crane Brook feeds into Hammer Stream, which in turn feeds into the section of the

River Beult which is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and which is

also described as ‘suffering from sewage effluent8.’

6 900 houses planned for Cranbrook. Assuming an average four people per house, the resulting

population increase would be 3600. Current population served by Cranbrook Sewage Works is 9995

i.e. 36% increase. 7https://www.pressreader.com/uk/kent-messenger-maidstone/20111104/281758446074542

8 https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/Citation/1005993.pdf

As well as being in an AONB, this is an environmentally sensitive area. Crane Brook is

ranked as ‘unhealthy’ by the Environment Agency, due to ‘pollution from waste

water’ and ‘pollution from towns, cities and transport9’. The entire region – including

all of Cranbrook and downstream to Sissinghurst, Frittenden, and Biddenden – has

been designated a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone by the Environment Agency10. In

addition, it has been designated a Drinking Water Safeguard Zone (surface water) –

which is reserved for ‘water sources that are “at risk” of deterioration.’ SEPARATE

(SEctor Pollutant AppoRtionment for the AquaTic Environment) analysis shows that

sewage treatment works already contribute 11.6% of the total nitrate load per year

in this sensitive area, with Cranbrook Sewage Works contributing 5075 kg/year in

consented discharge11.

A qualified ecologist carried out a survey of protected species around CRS7 in 2012

and found populations of Great Crested Newts less than 250m from Sewage Works.

Other protected species on CRS7 include badgers (several badger setts), dormice,

water voles, adders and bats.

Adders on CRS7

Location of the main badger setts on CRS7

CRS7 is also in the official Impact Risk Zone of Robin’s Wood and Parsonage Wood

SSSI12. In the sustainability appraisal, it states that reference should be made to SSSI

Impact Risk Zones. Unlike other sites, no reference is made to the SSSI status of CRS7

9 https://www.wwf.org.uk/uk-rivers-map

https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/WaterBody/GB106040018290 10

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones 2017 Final Designations - Hammer Stream NVZ ID 496. 11

http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/nvz/NVZ2017_S496_Datasheet.pdf 12

https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx and personal communication, Lady Akenhead,

Chairman, CPRE Kent Tunbridge Wells District Committee

in the scoring tables13

In summary, the combination of Cranbrook Sewage Works adjacent to CRS7 with the

annual flooding of CRS7, means a development of this size on CRS7 will have

detrimental impact on the environment in this sensitive AONB.

Road Safety

1) Pedestrian access to Cranbrook

The site assessment sheets state that ‘there is pedestrian access to the centre of

Cranbrook.’ The pedestrian access referred to is inadequate we have regularly been

told that no improvement is possible.

Where it exists, there is a narrow pavement along a treacherous stretch of road. In

the other direction it stops at Fir Tree Farm, well before the boundary of CRS7 to the

East.

We have had children at the local school in Cranbrook for over ten years. They take

their lives into their hands every time they walk into Cranbrook. The issues with

pedestrian access are apparently intractable:

a) Width of pavement

The Department for Transport states that the width of a pavement should be 200

cm as the minimum under normal circumstances. Where this is not possible because

of physical constraints 150 cm could be regarded as the minimum acceptable under

most circumstances. The absolute minimum, where there is an obstacle, should be

100 cm clear space14.

The width of the pavement on Golford Road, on the treacherous bends heading into

Cranbrook, is 70 cm, well below absolute minimum recommended by the

Department for Transport. Moreover, this width is achieved only when the nettles,

brambles, and other overgrowing vegetation have been cleared. For most of the

year, it is less than 50 cm wide i.e. not wide enough for pedestrians to walk safely as

cars speed around the bends.

We have repeatedly been told that it is not possible to widen the pavement.

b) Traffic speed

Golford Road is a designated rural lane. The traffic going towards Cranbrook should

be at <30 mph, but this is ignored by most.

c) Width of road

The road is narrow on the dangerous bends going into Cranbrook. Each side of the

carriageway is well under the width of the school buses, farm traffic and sewage

13 eg the nearby Tilsden Lane site states ‘negative biodiversity score reflects combination of size of

site and relative closeness to SSSI.’ 14

Inclusive Mobility 2002: a guide to best practice on access to pedestrian and transport

infrastructure. Department for Transport.

tankers using the road. Vehicles inevitably encroach on the pavement, and the

pavement is not wide enough for pedestrians to avoid these.

d) Flooding

This stretch of road is also prone to flooding (as identified in the Strategic Flood Risk

Assessment 200715) which exacerbates the problems. Large puddles form here, even

in light showers, and cars cannot avoid driving through them, inevitably dousing any

pedestrians on the pavement.

We have been writing to the council about these issues since we moved here in 2009.

In particular, we have regularly requested that something is done to slow down the

traffic and enforce the 30 mph zone which starts outside our home. KCC states that

this is not a priority as ‘assessed by analysing the reportable personal injury crash

record for the previous three years’, but the official record of personal injury

crashes grossly underestimates the number of incidents on this stretch. We've

contacted them many times about this, especially after we’ve just witnessed another

major incident, but most crashes do not make it to the official figures. A better

estimate of the number of crashes would be to obtain records for the repairs on the

15 TWBC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2007) Table 4-2: Fluvial Flooding Problem Areas.

One of the regular tankers to and

from the Sewage Works this one is

turning out of the Sewage Works

onto Golford Road.

solid steel rungs of the barrier on the other side of the road. These are frequently

replaced due to contortion when vehicles crash into them.

Rungs replaced after recent collision and

fence post still showing signs of collision.

It has been sobering to read the various objections to expansions of the Sewage

Works over the years. Letters written to the council in the early 1990s are still just as

valid today: ‘The volume of traffic at rush hour; the vast majority of vehicles

travelling at over 50 mph as they sweep into the bend; and the vast majority of

traffic moving over the middle white line into the flow of the oncoming traffic when

manoeuvring the first bend, with the attendant risk to life on the pavement as they

try to swerve away from oncoming vehicles.’16

In previous relatively modest plans to expand the sewage works, the Department of

Highways and Transportation objected because the width and visibility of the rural

approach roads were unsuitable for the increase in traffic, making the proposal

unacceptable on highway safety grounds. TWBC itself raised objections, including

the unacceptable impact of additional traffic movements on highway safety17. We

trust that highway safety has not slipped off the agenda since then.

2) Vehicular access to Cranbrook/Staplehurst

Access to Cranbrook and to the nearest train station in Staplehurst is gained via the

T-junction at Waterloo Road. This is a major pressure point. To the right is Cranbrook

School, a 20 mph zone which is effectively a single track road due to parked vehicles.

To the left is Stone Street, which for the most part is a single track road where cars

from both sides vie for priority in the heart of Cranbrook, and/or mount the

pavement. Immediately before the T-junction is Tanyard car park, which exacerbates

the chaos. Intensifying traffic here is undesirable on safety grounds, as well as being

detrimental to businesses in Cranbrook.

The only alternative route from CRS7 to Staplehurst is via Chapel Lane to the A262 in

Sissinghurst. This is also a major pressure point. The Street in Sissinghurst already

has severe traffic problems, which would only be aggravated by the proposed

development.

16 Planning application 93/1090 – objections.

17 Planning application 93/1090 – decision.

Compliance with TWBC’s own strategies and assessments.

The proposed development runs counter to TWBC’s current core policies18 e.g. Core

Policy 4 (Environment) states that the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty will be conserved and enhanced, and Core Policy 5 (Sustainable Design and

Construction) states that all new developments will be expected to be located

outside of the Borough's high risk flood zones and produce no negative effects on

existing flood patterns.

TWBC’s Site Assessment Sheets19 and the TWBC Sustainability Appraisal20 both state

that ‘the proposed housing density is considered high for this site given sensitive

landscape and edge of settlement location. The site would suit low density,

farmstead style development.’

TWBC’s 2007 Flood Risk Assessment identifies ‘backing up of Crane Brook at Bakers

Cross’ as a problem flood risk area.21 The same document goes on to state ‘in

addition to river flooding, the areas around Cranbrook have experienced flooding as

a result of overloading of the sewer system’ and ‘in the preparation of Local

Development Documents and considering planning applications, local authorities in

conjunction with the Environment Agency, should ... take account of increased

sewage effluent flows on fluvial flood risk.’ TWBC has not done so, and these issues

have only deteriorated since 2007. Our neighbours regularly have sewage from the

Sewage Works flooding their property. They have raised the issue many times, and

well before CRS7 was submitted, purely out of concern about the other planned

new buildings elsewhere in Cranbrook eg in 2013, they submitted ‘The sewage

facilities are at present inadequate for Cranbrook. We are the last household before

the sewage works and have had overflows up our manholes running into sheds and

over property - back and front garden’ The response from Southern Water was

‘Southern Water has limited powers to prevent connections. This is the case even

when there is insufficient capacity in the sewers resulting in unacceptable levels of

service such as sewer flooding.’22

Unfortunately the site has been entirely missed off the 2019 Flood Risk Assessment,

perhaps leading to the impression that there is no flood risk. Table 13-1: Site

Summary Assessment hops from 31 to 33, missing out site ref 32, presumably

because the site was submitted late23.

The Sustainability Appraisal specifically states that it placed reliance on the 2019

Flood Risk Assessment in its assessment24, and yet CRS7 seems to have slipped

18 The Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted June 2010).

19 Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment for Draft Local Plan July 2019.

20 Sustainability Appraisal of the Draft Local Plan for Regulation 18 September 2019.

21 TWBC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2007) Table 4-2: Fluvial Flooding Problem Areas.

22 http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/ data/assets/pdf_file/0010/39871/Response-Report-

7_Chapter-6-Cranbrook.pdf 23

TWBC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2019). 24

Table 2 of the Sustainability Appraisal. New or upcoming relevant evidence studies and implications

for the SA.

through without Flood Risk Assessment. We trust that the site will be dropped from

the proposals once the necessary Flood Risk Assessment has been performed.

TWBC’s Sustainability Appraisal of the Draft Local Plan, September 2019 states ‘sites

that were poorly related to existing settlements or had significant environmental

concerns were not deemed to be reasonable alternatives.’

This site is clearly has significant environmental concerns. It should be excluded from

the list.

This site constitutes a significant development within the AONB. As it stands, the

assessment of this site fails to meet the statutory duty placed on all public bodies by

the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to have regard to the purpose of

AONBs in performing any of their functions which might affect land within these

areas.

Comments also relevant to:

• Policy EN 21 – AONB The impact on the AONB of allocating this site has not

been properly assessed. NPPF, para 172, states that “great weight should be

given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty” in

AONBs.

• Policy EN 28 – flood risk

• Policy EN 6 – safeguarding historic environment

• Policy EN 17 – local green space

Policy STR 1

The Development Strategy - Use of greenfield/AONB sites should be minimised.

CRS7 is not a sustainable way to meet housing needs.

Policy STR 6

Transport and Parking – almost all residents of CRS7 will use their own cars to get to

their place of employment. There are no more than a handful of jobs that could be

reached from this site without using a car.

Policy STR 8

Conserving and enhancing the natural, built, and historic environment

Policy STR 10 Limits to Built Development Boundaries. CRS7 does not even adjoin the

LBD. It is not mentioned in the document about limits to built development, but it is

shown on the map and is still outside the LBD, even as amended. This map shows

clearly the extent to which CRS7 is out on a limb.

CRS7 in relation to nearby sites

CRS7 was submitted late and forms part of a larger plot, ‘late site 22’ that was

considered but rejected25. Amongst the issues considered were ‘AONB status,

ecological interest, land contamination (sewage treatment works), and SFRA Flood

Zone status’. Late site 22 was considered unsuitable for development because

‘national policy regarding major development in the AONB is clear: the tests to be

met for major development in this designation are extremely high, and include

demonstrating that (housing and employment) needs cannot be met outside the

AONB (either in the Borough, or outside, under the Duty to Cooperate). The level of

harm (landscape and scenic beauty) that would arise to the AONB is high. This

SHELAA has demonstrated the availability of suitable sites outside the AONB. This

site is therefore not suitable for development.’

SHELAA concludes ‘Given the strong policy protection given to the AONB (a national

designation) in the NPPF, the whole site is considered unsuitable as a potential Local

Plan allocation. Yet SHELAA is proceeding with the two most problematic fields of

the entire site, also in AONB:

CRS7 (late site 32) consists of the two southernmost fields of late site 22. Unlike the

rest of late site 22, CRS7 is in the official impact risk zone for an SSSI, CRS7 is

adjacent to the Sewage Works, and CRS7 has SFRA Flood Zone status 3b. CRS7 also

has poor accessibility compared to, for example, land off Waterloo Road.

Given that CRS7 is described as ‘land off Waterloo Road’, and that so many negative

factors of CRS7 are not mentioned in the site assessment, we would question

whether the correct piece of land has been assessed.

CRS7 is comparable to an adjacent development in Scott field, which was rejected

because ‘development would represent a negative impact upon the biodiversity and

natural environment objectives, in addition to possible negative impacts upon the

water and flood risk objective due to the site's proximity to the Crane Valley. Loss of

green space is likely to have a negative impact …’

These factors have been ignored so far in the assessment of CRS7.

Likewise, nearby site 92 has been rejected due to ‘loss of greenfield site in AONB

part of which is historic fields adjacent to historic farmsteads’ – CRS7 is almost

identical, except the historic farmsteads are nearer to CRS7, and it has further

negatives (flood plain and sewage). Both are in the official impact risk zone of an SSSI.

It is nonsensical to proceed with CRS7 when these comparable, but slightly better

sites, have been rejected.

25

Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment for Draft Local Plan July 2019.

CRS7 Historic Farmsteads & Historic boundaries