Note re Dr Judy Webb’s comments: ‘SUDS’ = Sustainable Urban Drainage System
Barton Area Action Plan Proposed Submission Document
Response to the Consultation
23.03.2012
From Judith A Webb
Section 3.4 Encouraging a low-carbon lifestyle and section 7.0 Innovative and responsive design
7.3 Home construction standards. The council’s aspirations for these new homes should be to satisfy the energy criteria for Code Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, even if Level 5 is what actually may be achievable. Insist on a high level of thermal efficiency for these new houses. Be pre-emptive of Zero-carbon regulations in 2016.
7.13 Linear green corridors and sustainable urban drainage.
I noted in the Stakeholder meeting regarding development on this site on Thursday 16th June that it was stated that this whole development would have SUDS that would produce an equivalent state to ‘greenfield or better’.
I continue to strongly challenge this statement. A greenfield (if un-compacted) is the only self-sustaining, completely indefinitely renewable, cost-free water-infiltration surface any site can have. This is obvious to any gardener. Drainage spaces in a natural soil are continually being formed by live earthworms burrowing and the growth and death of plant roots which leave vertical channels as they rot. Yes the channels silt up, just as in permeable paving; but the crucially different feature is that new drainage channels are always forming by the continuing action of living things (plants, worms) in the soil. No living things in a surface means no new channels continually formed. This is the situation in any artificial, man-made, permeable surface; where the initial channels are not replaced as they block up.
Even if a man-made permeable surface like paving or asphalt has the same permeability as a green grassy field on the day it is installed, this permeability will decline with time as the pore spaces block up with silt. One has to consider the situation further on in the life-time of the development, 10, 20, 50 or 100 years down the line. Run off will gradually increase and infiltration will decrease. SUDS make use of green infiltration devices such as ponds & swales etc. and permeable hard surfaces such as paving.
The key point is that any type of SUDS will need maintenance forever in order to function. Permeable surfaces become impermeable over time without costly maintenance or regular replacement. The developer will be long gone after construction, so who will pay for this (possibly annual) necessary maintenance? To put in SUDS without a full, efficient maintenance programme, planned and costed into the future for the lifetime of the SUDS is irresponsible on the part of Oxford City Council in my view. Maintenance of all SUDS can be planning obligations or as a condition attached to planning permissions for development. This should happen. Or they should be adopted by a local authority and looked after properly.
Section 4 Area action plan boundary, 4.2
See my previous submission on effects of this development on areas at a distance from the site. I still think the sewage from this new development will cause big problems for New Marston in Oxford. I remind officers of the situation that occurred in the development of new housing on the Timbmet site on Cumnor Hill. The first few houses that were built and connected to the existing sewerage network resulted in overloading of the system such that sewage upwelled into the roads further down Cumnor Hill after rain. Building had to stop until a small sewage treatment works was built actually on the Timbmet site. Locals warned that this would happen and their advice was ignored.
Do not let the same thing happen to New Marston. The obvious solution to me would be to put a small sewage treatment works directly on the West Barton site to deal with all its sewage, so that nothing more enters the network travelling under New Marston homes and SSSI meadows. Treated water could then be discharged from West Barton via a pipe to the Cherwell. Plan it in and cost it at this stage to avoid expensive retrofitting of a sewage treatment plant such as at Cumnor Hill Timbmet site.
Section 5 The A40 ring road and new housing
Building new residential homes that front directly onto the ring road is an extremely bad idea. Even if the speed limit is 40mph. This slower speed requirement and more signal controlled junctions will mean the ring road is solid with slower moving traffic for longer each day than at present because it is a major route. Slow moving or stationary traffic will produce higher levels of exhaust fumes which will give a poorer quality of life to the people living there.
It is ridiculous to assume that people will want houses facing on to such a road so that they will ‘not feel cut off from Oxford’. What people will want is quiet, unpolluted homes as far away from this congested road as possible. Even with a parallel access road in front of the houses. Just ask the residents of Sunderland Avenue (which has exactly this situation) what they would prefer and be guided by their experience of a major route near their houses. I predict they would all want to be further away.
Why have less planting in the A40 central reservation? Keep what is there and thicken it – reduce the visual impact of the busy road by providing more plant screening for people in houses in the new development so they do not have so many cars to look out on all the time.
Section 6
I think 1200 homes are far too many. The lower value of 800 should be the case. This will ensure the environment these people live in will be more pleasant and the environmental effects of this population increase will be minimal (sewage, recreation pressure etc.) Lower house density means you can use more green soft SUDS like ponds and swales (rather than permeable paving) because there is more space. Building only 800 may mean you can keep them well away from the noisy, fumy, A40 road and the electricity sub- station (health risks). As regards the electricity sub-station screening by a wide buffer of vegetation is the only sensible option. ‘Wrapping it by built development’ puts unfortunate people’s homes next to this ugly and un-healthful structure.
Annex 4 The Land at Barton and its surroundings
Ecology A4.11 No comment in this proposed submission on Sidlings Copse and College pond SSSI?? I made a full comment on my concerns over the greatly increased public access to this sensitive site only 600m from the new development in my comment of 24.06.2011. I fear that significant damage will be its long term fate from public pressure (including dogs). Nothing in these documents says anything about preserving this important site. I suggested diverting footpaths away from it, but in the plan diagrams, they are still there actually encouraging public to walk there. SSSIs of this ancient and fragile sort are not public recreation areas! They are not there for people, they are there for wildlife and they are irreplaceable. Damage to this site is not replaceable for example by doing lots of ‘ecological enhancements’ along the Bayswater brook linear park within the development.
Barton Area Action Plan Proposed Submission Document
Response to the Consultation
23.03.2012
From Judith A Webb
Section 3.4 Encouraging a low-carbon lifestyle and section 7.0 Innovative and responsive design
7.3 Home construction standards. The council’s aspirations for these new homes should be to satisfy the energy criteria for Code Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, even if Level 5 is what actually may be achievable. Insist on a high level of thermal efficiency for these new houses. Be pre-emptive of Zero-carbon regulations in 2016.
7.13 Linear green corridors and sustainable urban drainage.
I noted in the Stakeholder meeting regarding development on this site on Thursday 16th June that it was stated that this whole development would have SUDS that would produce an equivalent state to ‘greenfield or better’.
I continue to strongly challenge this statement. A greenfield (if un-compacted) is the only self-sustaining, completely indefinitely renewable, cost-free water-infiltration surface any site can have. This is obvious to any gardener. Drainage spaces in a natural soil are continually being formed by live earthworms burrowing and the growth and death of plant roots which leave vertical channels as they rot. Yes the channels silt up, just as in permeable paving; but the crucially different feature is that new drainage channels are always forming by the continuing action of living things (plants, worms) in the soil. No living things in a surface means no new channels continually formed. This is the situation in any artificial, man-made, permeable surface; where the initial channels are not replaced as they block up.
Even if a man-made permeable surface like paving or asphalt has the same permeability as a green grassy field on the day it is installed, this permeability will decline with time as the pore spaces block up with silt. One has to consider the situation further on in the life-time of the development, 10, 20, 50 or 100 years down the line. Run off will gradually increase and infiltration will decrease. SUDS make use of green infiltration devices such as ponds & swales etc. and permeable hard surfaces such as paving.
The key point is that any type of SUDS will need maintenance forever in order to function. Permeable surfaces become impermeable over time without costly maintenance or regular replacement. The developer will be long gone after construction, so who will pay for this (possibly annual) necessary maintenance? To put in SUDS without a full, efficient maintenance programme, planned and costed into the future for the lifetime of the SUDS is irresponsible on the part of Oxford City Council in my view. Maintenance of all SUDS can be planning obligations or as a condition attached to planning permissions for development. This should happen. Or they should be adopted by a local authority and looked after properly.
Section 4 Area action plan boundary, 4.2
See my previous submission on effects of this development on areas at a distance from the site. I still think the sewage from this new development will cause big problems for New Marston in Oxford. I remind officers of the situation that occurred in the development of new housing on the Timbmet site on Cumnor Hill. The first few houses that were built and connected to the existing sewerage network resulted in overloading of the system such that sewage upwelled into the roads further down Cumnor Hill after rain. Building had to stop until a small sewage treatment works was built actually on the Timbmet site. Locals warned that this would happen and their advice was ignored.
Do not let the same thing happen to New Marston. The obvious solution to me would be to put a small sewage treatment works directly on the West Barton site to deal with all its sewage, so that nothing more enters the network travelling under New Marston homes and SSSI meadows. Treated water could then be discharged from West Barton via a pipe to the Cherwell. Plan it in and cost it at this stage to avoid expensive retrofitting of a sewage treatment plant such as at Cumnor Hill Timbmet site.
Section 5 The A40 ring road and new housing
Building new residential homes that front directly onto the ring road is an extremely bad idea. Even if the speed limit is 40mph. This slower speed requirement and more signal controlled junctions will mean the ring road is solid with slower moving traffic for longer each day than at present because it is a major route. Slow moving or stationary traffic will produce higher levels of exhaust fumes which will give a poorer quality of life to the people living there.
It is ridiculous to assume that people will want houses facing on to such a road so that they will ‘not feel cut off from Oxford’. What people will want is quiet, unpolluted homes as far away from this congested road as possible. Even with a parallel access road in front of the houses. Just ask the residents of Sunderland Avenue (which has exactly this situation) what they would prefer and be guided by their experience of a major route near their houses. I predict they would all want to be further away.
Why have less planting in the A40 central reservation? Keep what is there and thicken it – reduce the visual impact of the busy road by providing more plant screening for people in houses in the new development so they do not have so many cars to look out on all the time.
Section 6
I think 1200 homes are far too many. The lower value of 800 should be the case. This will ensure the environment these people live in will be more pleasant and the environmental effects of this population increase will be minimal (sewage, recreation pressure etc.) Lower house density means you can use more green soft SUDS like ponds and swales (rather than permeable paving) because there is more space. Building only 800 may mean you can keep them well away from the noisy, fumy, A40 road and the electricity sub- station (health risks). As regards the electricity sub-station screening by a wide buffer of vegetation is the only sensible option. ‘Wrapping it by built development’ puts unfortunate people’s homes next to this ugly and un-healthful structure.
Annex 4 The Land at Barton and its surroundings
Ecology A4.11 No comment in this proposed submission on Sidlings Copse and College pond SSSI?? I made a full comment on my concerns over the greatly increased public access to this sensitive site only 600m from the new development in my comment of 24.06.2011. I fear that significant damage will be its long term fate from public pressure (including dogs). Nothing in these documents says anything about preserving this important site. I suggested diverting footpaths away from it, but in the plan diagrams, they are still there actually encouraging public to walk there. SSSIs of this ancient and fragile sort are not public recreation areas! They are not there for people, they are there for wildlife and they are irreplaceable. Damage to this site is not replaceable for example by doing lots of ‘ecological enhancements’ along the Bayswater brook linear park within the development.