RBWM Residents Action Group Needs your Support

Please read these flyers & head over to www.rbwmresidentsactiongroup.co.uk for more info.

23 TREES IN BRAYWICK PARK TO BE CHOPPED DOWN TO ALLOW BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL'S "GREEN SCHOOL" CONSTRUCTION WORK

The Braywick Court School website says: "We are a Green School and take our learning outside as often as possible."

TOO BAD THAT TO BUILD A "GREEN SCHOOL" YOU NEED TO FELL 23 TREES TO ENABLE ACCESS TO THE SITE AND FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION. 

(Not to mention that 13 of these trees are also in the Local Wildlife Site).

Details of the proposed construction compound and access for construction traffic to the Braywick Court School site have now been submitted to the Council (CLICK HERE to view - or head to the RBWM planning portal online and search for the Hibbert Road adress). In addition, details of measures to 'protect' the trees adjacent to the site during construction have also been submitted. 

The access to the school from the car park involves the removal of 2 yew trees, 2 holly trees, 2 field maples and the large bay tree in the Nature Centre garden, leaving only 2 yew trees which are to be heavily 'crown lifted' by 4.5m. 

In addition, many of the trees surrounding the site will have their lower branches cut off to raise the canopy (so that HGVs & construction vehicles can drive underneath)  and others will be heavily pruned back away from the school boundary, including the 4 old yew trees to the north of the school. This will result in the building appearing even more overbearing when viewed from the park & the dell, and the local wildlife site below.

IN TOTAL 23 TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED FOR BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL'S DEVELOPMENT AND 13 OF THOSE TREES ARE IN THE LOCAL WILDLIFE SITE.

If you object these trees being chopped down please  CLICK HERE to email all the relevant RBWM staff and Bray Ward councillors. Ask them to commit to protecting these trees, and also ask who will pay for the re-instatement of the Nature Centre Garden.

The Council's own Planning report from July 2016, (which is what councillors read before voting to the approve planning application), does not mention that ANY trees were going to be removed, and the only tree specifically mentioned in the document they said was to be retained 

"6.23 The Box tree [T63] is to be retained." 

However, we now see, according to the Arboricultural Method Statement of Feb 2017 that this tree, the only one mentioned in the report is actually to be chopped down! Along with 22 others. 



So to re-iterate here in simple terms: 

• The RBWM planning report for the Braywick Court School planning application, which is what the councillors rely on for information about the plans (as do the public), before voting on the application DID NOT MENTION THAT ANY TREES WOULD NEED TO BE CUT DOWN.

• IT NOW TRANSPIRES THAT AT LEAST 23 TREES WILL BE CUT DOWN. Also the only tree specifically mentioned in that RBWM planning report is among those to be chopped down, even tough the report says it would be retained!!

Sound familiar? Remember BPET & Braywick Court School's statements to parents & residents that merely "The existing buildings will be refurbished"?

Why does this 'Green School' require so much destruction, the chopping down of so many trees & ruining this area of such a beautiful park?

Why were they not honest from the outset?

We hope our councillors will stand up to BPET & do something to protect the park and all these trees. Please email them using the 'Act Now' button above.

-----

ALSO, THE 'TREE PROTECTION PLANS' WHICH BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL HAS SUBMITTED ARE WRONG.

They do not show the trees to be removed in the Nature Centre Garden nor do they show all the proposed lateral pruning and crown lifting and thus are misleading and misrepresent what is being planned. 

THE DIAGRAMS IN THE SCHOOL'S PLANS ARE INCORRECT AND DO NOT SHOW CORRECTLY HOW MANY, AND WHICH TREES THEY WANT TO REMOVE!

(All you have to do is compare the list of trees to be removed in the appendix with the corresponding trees on the diagram and you can see that it is (accidentally on purpose?) incorrect and makes it look like most of them will be unaffected - trees to be removed should be illustrated with dotted edges but are not.)

So, to make things clearer, here are a couple of corrected images - red circles indicate trees (or groups of several trees) to be chopped down.

Map showing trees to be removed for the construction of Braywick Court School. This image shows the trees in the Nature Centure Garden to be chopped down, in red. The ones in yellow are to be heavily 'crown lifted' to 4.5m (which means any branches up to that height are removed).

-- Another quote from the RBWM Development Control Panel report we now know to be incorrect and misleading:

6.5 Views of the new building would be limited from outside due to the substantial tree cover along the north and east boundaries,from the west due to the existing nature centre building and further trees and vegetation and from the south due to the building’s set back and 2m high brick wall adjacent to Hibbert Road.

Looking at the details of trees to be felled you will see that 5 more tree groups on the Eastern boundary, within the local wildlife site in Braywick Park are to be removed. These are all evergreens that form the bulk of any screening from the road the the listed cottages there. IN TOTAL 10 TREES ARE BEING FELLED ON THIS EASTERN BOUNDARY. You can see them in red in the image above. (Though there are only 6 rings there, some of them represent groups of trees rather than single trees). 

If you know the area then you will understand how important they are for screening of the site and their removal will make this development stand out and be even more visible.

-- And again, another misleading statement from the Council's report before planning permission was approved:

6.39 The closest residential property to the new school is positioned approximately 20m to the east.  Given this separation distance, the orientation of the buildings and the existing tree screening to be retained, together with any additional tree planting considered necessary, it is not considered that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of this property in terms of loss of privacy, loss of light or from the development appearing overbearing.

NOT TRUE! THE EXISTING TREE SCREENING IS NOT TO BE RETAINED. 9 OF THE TREES PROVIDING THAT SCREENING ARE TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT!! 

(The small box tree (T79) doesn't really provide screening, but the other 9 do for sure.)

IF THESE 23 TREES ARE ALLOWED TO BE CHOPPED DOWN, ALONG WITH THE EXTREME CROWN LIFTING OF 13 OTHER TREES AND THE CUTTING BACK OF 5 OTHERS THE EFFECT ON THE PARK & THE SURROUNDING AREA WILL BE DEVASTATING. THE BUILDING WILL APPEAR EVEN MORE OVERBEARING ON THE PARK AND THE DELL & LOCAL WILDLIFE SITE BELOW. 

A towering blot on the landscape overwhelming the park, not a sympathetic 'green' building tucked away in the corner.

Here's some photos of some of the trees that will be removed from the front of the Nature Centre garden. (These particular ones are to be chopped down purely so that they can build an access road through it for all the HGVs and construction vehicles because there is no other way to get through to the small site.)

Braywick Park Car Park at Hibbert Road could be CLOSED to the Public for well over a Year

Braywick Court School's development within Braywick Park looks like it now may require the use of the whole car park at Hibbert Road for a construction compound for the duration of build phase, which is expected to last well in excess of 12 months.

Nowhere in the Braywick Court School planning application did Bellevue Place Education Trust address construction matters, in particular, where their construction compound would be located and the duration of the build.  As they doggedly pursued building the school on a very small site, they clearly needed land for the contractor's office and building materials.  

Whilst construction impacts are temporary and therefore not a planning matter, the issue of the possible use of the Hibbert Road car park for a construction compound was flagged up in at least one of the objections to the planning application.  

One resident has been asking the Council for over seven months whether part or all of the car park would be handed over to BPET during the construction of the school.  Having never received a response, a FOI request was made and the Council responded on the 18 November as follows:

"Whilst the borough offered some of the car park as a construction storage area the contractor has said he would require a lot more space, possibly all.  This matter is still under discussion therefore, no decision on available space and time duration has been taken."

According to the head teacher, the build will take well in excess of 12 months.

It is considered totally unacceptable for the public to lose the use of most or all of the car park for such a long period of time.  

BPET must have just presumed the council simply would hand over the car park on licence to the Trust.

This once again shows the arrogance of BPET and the Department of Education who have little or no regard or respect for the local area and the users of Braywick Park and the Braywick Nature Centre.

The Council has not been upfront about the potential impacts of the school on Braywick Park.

Please let the Council know your views on the potential loss of the car park for the duration of the construction process. 

Write to Cllr. Samantha Rayner who is lead member for Communities and Culture (which includes parks and open spaces) her email is:

cllr.s.rayner@rbwm.gov.uk

Braywick Court School's contractor has said they may need this whole car park as a construction storage area.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL'S PLANNING APPLICATION & WHY HAVE THEY IGNORED ALTERNATIVE SITES?

Please CLICK HERE to send an email with your objections to the planning application.

Feel free to use information from this website as a guide for key points but please write in your own words & mention the issues that you feel most strongly about & those that affect you personally. Your letter doesn't have to be long either, even just a few sentences.

There are some very detailed letters of objection already submitted which can be viewed under any 'community comments' on the RBWM website but here are some bullet points that may be of use:

The main point is that the proposed site is far too small to accommodate the proposed new building without having significant adverse effects on the local area.

1. The site has no on site car parking and no proper road access. Thus the proposed development would be likely to cause traffic problems by virtue of increased traffic generation, access and road safety problems. It is also likely to adversely affect users of Braywick Park as the only vehicular access to the school site is through the park itself. (For example construction traffic & ongoing services access such as waste disposal). The mere fact that this site was suitable for a Victorian village primary school to which most pupils would have walked, does not mean that it is suitable for a 21st Century primary school, more than double the capacity, where most pupils are delivered by car

2. The proposed development would result in significant loss of trees in Braywick Park, despite the fact that the application states no trees to be removed.

3. The proposed development would damage the natural environment in that it would have an adverse effect on the adjacent Local Wildlife Site in Braywick Park. In this respect the scheme would involve the loss of loss of at least 6 trees to the east of the site boundary and three near the proposed entrance to the school, although for some reason this is not referred to in the application (other than in the Development Tree Survey).

4. The proposed development is not in keeping with the scale or character of the local area.

5. The proposed development would have negative impact on the amenity of existing residential properties, through noise, overlooking, and loss of privacy.

6. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the setting of the terrace of five cottages opposite the school building, which are Grade 2 Listed Buildings.

7. Lastly (and by no means the least important), the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would have an adverse effect on its openness. Although the applicant claims that this development is not inappropriate as it is simply replacing an existing building in the same use. The proposed building is over 300% larger in terms of overall floorspace - 1211m2 compared to 350m2) and the footprint is almost 2.5 times greater (784m2 compared to 319m2). The front façade of the two storey part of the building would be much closer to the road than the existing building, particularly in the south eastern corner of the site and the building would be contiguous with the eastern boundary. The bulk, height and siting of the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

All the above points are in direct conflict with approved planning policies that are set out in both the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and with the relevant saved policies in the RBWM Local Plan. We have deliberately not set them all here in order to keep this post as short and succinct as possible.

--------

THE ALTERNATIVE SITE

There is however another larger site, referred to in the applicant’s Planning Statement, and which is understood to be available, but which appears to have been dismissed from consideration by the applicant without any apparent reason. The site in question, also within the Braywick Park sports complex is owned by RBWM, as indeed is the current application site. It was identified in the Oldfield School site assessment study as a potentially suitable site, but did not proceed at that time as it was a little remote from that school’s main catchment.

The Council has previously offered this site to the BPET/The School. Ann Pfeiffer, head of Childrens' Services has stated: "Should the Trust want to pursue this option further then there is no established reason why it cannot do so".

At the present time it remains undeveloped and with a site area of 0.385ha, is more than
twice as large as the Hibbert Road site. Locating the proposed new Braywick Court School building here would overcome virtually all the problems and harmful effects that are inherent in the present proposal. Yes, it is still within the Green Belt but the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm would be substantially less than is the case with the Hibbert Road site.

In summary, the main advantages of locating the new school on the ALTERNATIVE SITE rather than on the present application site are:

- There would be far fewer of the harmful effects to the Green Belt that are inherent in the present proposal;

- The site is larger and thus would permit a building with far better facilities including outside play areas and parking and servicing arrangements than the present proposal can achieve;

- The site would be served from a better road access point – the access for drop off and pick up of children is exactly the same as has been proposed in this application – but the contrived ‘park and stride’ scheme would not be necessary;

- The site is considerably closer to, and indeed within reasonable walking distance of the projected areas of new residential development both within and to the south of the town centre, from where the school’s future pupils are most likely to be drawn.

The end product would be a far more satisfactory development all round both for the school, parents transporting children, residents and park users.

Please CLICK HERE to send an email with your objections to the planning application.

(You can view all the official documents relating to the plans if you click here.)

BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL PLANNING APPLICATION INCLUDES PROPOSAL FOR SINGLE/DOUBLE YELLOW LINES ON HIBBERT ROAD

BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL PLANNING APPLICATION INCLUDES PROPOSAL FOR SINGLE/DOUBLE YELLOW LINES ON HIBBERT ROAD Hidden away in the pages of the new planning application are proposals to introduce parking restrictions (i.e. single or even double yellow lines) along Hibbert Road, from The Causeway all the way until the junction with A308/Braywick Road. None of this was mentioned in the School's 'Public Exhibition' in January, or is mentioned in any of the promotional material about the application. It has effectively been hidden. The School's Transport Assessment in para 4.10 (see photos attached) says this is 'an additional safeguard against parent/carer parking' that 'is a suggestion made by residents'. We are interested to see (and have requested) any documents where residents would suggest this - as many of us from the area need to park our cars on Hibbert Road (and always have done, long before Braywick Court School ever existed.) If Braywick Court School's Travel Plan & 'Home School Agreement' is as 'robust' as claimed, then all parents/carers will use the 'Park & Stride' car park by Braywick Sports Ground. That is the key promise which the Travel Plan hinges on, and the School's only, (and unenforceable) answer to residents' concerns about all the extra traffic, access & parking problems a school of this size, on this site will create. Concerns which were shared by the Highway Development Control when they recommended the previous application be refused permission, which led to its withdrawal. So which one is it? Will all parents access the school & park where the school promises they will, forever, or will they want to to park on Hibbert Road? Sounds like the School admitting its travel plan is completely unenforceable. Which is what we've always said. Will there be similar restrictions in the Nature Reserve Car Park? No, there can't be, and there is no way of legally preventing parents from dropping off their children there. So why restrictions on Hibbert Road - which only really affect residents? Is this a cheap attempt at 'payback' against residents that have complained about the previous planning application? Did they expect anyone to even notice? Why wasn't this part of the proposal made clear at the exhibition? What else is hidden in the pages of the new application? Maybe this is just a set-up gambit so that RBWM can remove the idea of these particular restrictions as a 'concessionary' condition when the application goes to panel so they can be seen to have supposedly listened to residents' concerns?

Initial Thoughts & Questions on the new Proposals

We're still having a good look at the new proposals & will post more thoughts officially here once we've had a chance to discuss fully as a group.

First impressions are that it looks like all the same HUGE issues relating to the Travel Plan, Traffic, Access & Parking remain. [Remember the Highway Development Control recommended the original plans be refused based on its size & those same issues - pupil numbers and the site's location are unchanged in these plans so the situation is the same].

We ARE relieved to see plans to use the Nature Centre & build directly on the Park itself have been shelved (although issues of overdevelopment on the site and impact on the Green Belt in various ways remain), so if the Council, their friends at Bellevue Place Education Trust & the School manage to keep bulldozing this scheme forward at least we managed to prevent them doing that. For now at least...

Just a few common-sense questions that pop up:

What happens in the future when the 'travel plan' (which seems to be pivotal in the plans, despite the key elements remaining unchanged from the first planning application) is forgotten & not enforced, but the damage is already done & the buildings built, and parents dropping off and parking in the Hibbert Road Car park, or on Hibbert Road (and the pavement as they have sometimes before) itself?

How do the developers propose to gain access to the site during all the demolition and construction work, if it goes ahead? How much will this damage & disrupt the formal gardens at Braywick Park & the surrounding area, how will all the heavy machinery access the site?

What was the other permanent site that was investigated and why is that not being considered? Or being made public? (When school representatives were asked this at the exhibition some members of the public were told, and others were not. Is the School and BPET telling prospective parents one thing, and residents another? The same goes for the Councillors taking an interest in the issue. Are we being deliberately misled?)

How many of the parents that signed up their kids to the School in the beginning were told that the original School buildings were "out of date, do not meet modern teaching standard requirements and are inefficient in design and had to be replaced" (rather than simply "will be refurbished" as the official school promotion documents said? Again - deliberately misleading statements. Why should we trust them to stick to travel plan promises in the future, for example?).

If the current buildings are "out of date, do not meet modern teaching standard requirements and are inefficient in design & have to be replaced" then why was the site selected for the school in the first place? Why was this hidden from parents and residents at the start?

What happens in the future when the obviously inadequate playground size (with inadequate punctuation!) leads to an application to expand out and 'lease' more land from the Park? Did they already ask for this before at the very beginning?

Has the council leased additional Public Open Space land to the School/Trust over and above the land leased in July 2014? (The plans show a red line extending out into the Public Open Space by the Nature Centre.)

Is a modern, glass fronted, 2 storey, yellow brick, flat-roofed building in keeping with the local setting? (The area is dominated by red brick buildings, some of which date back to the 1700s & are Grade II listed).

Planning Application Withdrawn

The planning application has been withdrawn by Braywick Court School/BPET.

Hopefully the School & Bellevue Place Education Trust, their backers have found an alternative site, or a 'split site' solution that won't involve building on the formal Gardens at Braywick Park, taking over the Nature Centre, the Green Belt issues, the overdevelopment on the existing site, the highways, traffic & parking problems & doesn't have such a big, negative impact on Braywick Park & the surrounding area. 

We're not against a smaller school, or part of a split site school on the Winbury site so will be interested to see what comes next.

More news when we have it.

Highways Authorities recommend that Planning Permission is REFUSED.

The official Highway Development Control comments have been submitted today and we're pleased to see that they recommend REFUSAL of the planning application.

Hopefully our RBWM Councillors will read the document, all the letters of objection they have received, and the petition signed by 200+ residents, other recommendations for refusal by Bray Parish Council & the Flood Authority, and take them into account when the application is put to the vote.

You can download the original document if you click here (or here) or read it below.

All of the planning documents, the Bray Parish Council's comments (also recommending refusal) and 100+ letters of objection can be downloaded from the RBWM website here.

Site Location

Hibbert Road is a local distributor that provides an alternative link between the A308 Braywick Road and the B3022 Bray Road. The road is also subjected to a 30mph speed limit.

Between its junction with the A308 Braywick Road and the entrance to the Braywick Car Park, Hibbert Road has footways along both sides of the road. However, there is only a single footway on the south side of Hibbert Road running between the car park entrance and The Causeway.

There are no pedestrian facilities along Hibbert Road from The Causeway towards the B3022 Bray Road. To the west of the school there are no pedestrian crossing facilities across the A308 Braywick Road for parents who wish to walk to the school.

The site comprises the school, formerly known as Winbury Primary School and Braywick Nature Reserve and car park.

The school is currently served by an existing access located to the south east of the site that offers wholly restricted views in both directions due to the absence of a footpath and the horizontal alignment of Hibbert Road. The proposed plan shows the retention of this access. However, given the limited views offered the Highway Authority recommend that this access is closed.

Access to the new school will be via Braywick Road car park and through double gates located north-west of the site boundary.

Access by Service Vehicles

The submission includes a swept path analysis of a small refuse vehicle manoeuvring to and from the site. As we understand RBWM Waste Management only collects recycling materials from the school and this undertaken by the small vehicle depicted in the plan.

Unfortunately, the submission again is silent on what provisions have been made to collect not only waste materials, but also the recycling materials when the number of pupils reaches 210. The plan excludes details of the waste/recycling storage facility, but infers that a waste vehicle will enter the car park and collect the waste from the main entrance. The distance between a refuse vehicle stationed in the car park and the main entrance exceeds the current guidelines detailed below:

BS 5906:2005 recommends that waste operatives should not be expected to move two- wheeled containers more than 15m between collection point and vehicle, and four-wheeled containers no more than 10m. Collection vehicles must be able to wait legally within 15 metres of all dustbin/sack collection points and within 10 metres of bulk bin collection points.

With reference to the Proposed Site Plan [6APES072/P/050.011 Rev 10] the distance between a vehicle parked in the car park and the main entrance gates exceeds 40m.

Parking Requirements

The previous school and the proposed site offers no off street parking facility. However, as part of the lease agreement 8 parking spaces in the Braywick car park will be given over to the school for staff and disabled users.

With reference to the Authority’s parking standard the new school attracts a parking demand of 1 space per 1 full-time equivalent staff, which includes visitors and parents.

Provisions should also be made either within the school premises or on the highway for a loading area for a school bus/coach and where necessary sufficient space allowed for buses to enter and leave the site safely.

Based upon the submission the servicing arrangement will take place within Braywick Car Park. Unfortunately, the application is silent with regard to whether a bus or coach will be used by the school and whether the appropriate provisions are in place for this.

From a historical context the Highway Authority has received complaints about inconsiderate parking along Hibbert Road, when the former Winbury School operated with 90 pupils. The consequence of some parents parking partly on the footway/carriageway and generally on the carriageway close to the school effectively reduced the free flow of traffic in the area, resulting in sections of Hibbert Road reverting to a one way operation.

Braywick Car Park was not only used by dog walkers and visitors to the nature reserve, but also by parents. The car park currently provides circa 44 spaces which will reduce to about 36 spaces as a consequence of the application.

Traffic Generation

The applicant has undertaken a ‘Mode of Transport to School’ survey for the current school year containing circa 27 pupils. These results when adjusted to reflect the mode of transport for a school with the 210 pupils suggest that 84% of parents will travel by car or taxi, 10% walking to school, and 5% travelling by cycle and scooter.

The Highway Authority is of the view that given the limited opportunities for parents and pupil to travel by foot or cycle, car borne trips are likely to be in the 90% range. The survey was undertaken during September 2014 when the weather conditions are inviting and would attract some parents who would consider adopting other modes of travel. Clearly a more balanced result would have been to undertake a similar survey during the winter months.

Park and Stride

The applicant states that a majority of the pupils will be accessing the school via the purpose built footpath from the ‘Park & Stride’ drop-off point at Braywick Sports and Recreational Ground, and those parents that do drive into Braywick Nature Reserve Car Park will effectively be turned away and asked to use the Braywick Sports Ground. We question how this can be enforced since this is a public car park which the applicant has no control over its use. A further complication is that parents are permitted to park in the Nature Reserve Car Park out of normal school hours.
Presently, there are no restrictions preventing parents from parking in the Nature Reserve Car Park at any time during the day or on Hibbert Road, when dropping-off or picking -up their children.

The submission fails to acknowledge that there will be seasonal variations in the numbers choosing the Park & Stride option, and especially during inclement weather conditions.
Presently, the purpose built path is unlit and can hardly be considered an inviting prospect for parents and staff parked in the Sport Ground during the autumn and winter period. The Highway Authority understands that concerns have also been raised about the adequacy of the access road to the ‘Park & Stride’ and that this would be a further deterrent to parents and staff.

No measures are proposed in the Transport Assessment to address servicing arrangement, the increase traffic generation nor does it acknowledge that these trips will vary significantly during the seasons.

The School Travel Plan (STP) accompanying the submission states that,
‘Parking on Hibbert Road, Gas Lane or The Causeway is not permitted for school traffic at any time’. To reiterate there are no restrictions preventing parents from parking in these areas.
The STP states that 8 staff and parents using the Early Birds and Evening Owls club will be issued a parking permit. As explained earlier this is a public car park.

The plan also mentions introducing incentive schemes to encourage walking and cycling by staff and parents.

At this point we should mention that the purpose of a School Travel Plan is to encourage parents, visitors and staff to adopt other modes of transport, thereby reducing the dependency on car borne trips. However, there are occasions whereby despite the introduction of the improved measures/incentives, the site location, the traffic conditions and the highway infrastructure is so poor there has not been a commensurate reduction in traffic levels.

Whilst we accept that there may be a number of shared trips and siblings already in attendance at the school, the increase nevertheless is significant and would further increase vehicular activity into the area, short term and ad hoc parking as well as inconsiderate parking on Hibbert Road and parking in Braywick Nature Reserve Car Park.

Much is mentioned about incentivising the parents and staff and introducing an Action Plan with agreed targets and objectives set out in the STP. However, may I remind the applicant that the STP should not be viewed as the panacea for addressing the potential increase in traffic generation and parking associated with this scheme.

The National Planning Policy Framework states,
‘Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the
residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’.

This proposal would lead to a significant increase in vehicular activity into the area. For this and the reasons mentioned above it is our conclusion that the site does not lend itself to further expansion beyond that already permitted. Therefore, we recommend that permission is refused.

HDC Officer: M D Andrews
Date: 30 July 2015