15th June 2023

Introduction

People for Packsaddle (PFP) is a community body which was formed to protect the community’s long- standing use of Packsaddle Fields. PFP was instrumental in securing the listing of the fields as an asset of community value (ACV), which formally recognised the recreational value of the fields for the community.

PFP has prepared this response to the application by Live West for the development of the fields. PFP has been advised on this response by Tim Taylor, an experienced planning lawyer who has advised on numerous planning applications, appeals and legal challenges within Somerset.

For the reasons set out in detail, PFP strongly objects to the proposal. Not only is the application strewn with errors and inaccuracies but it is contrary to numerous Local Plan policies. It fails to provide any affordable housing but succeeds in providing a site where 70% of the units will be unaffordable 3 and 4 bedroom houses. It permanently removes a listed community asset which will have mental and physical impacts on the community that currently use the fields.

This application is not only a disgrace, it’s an embarrassment.

The Council may want, even need, the capital receipt but the Council’s local planning authority, which is independent of the Council for these purposes, must see the application for what it is – a shoddy, half- baked, cramped, profit-driven, unsustainable, non-compliant and harmful scheme – and refuse it.

Affordable Housing

Development Policy 11 of the MDC Local Plan Pt1 states that housing developments are expected to provide 30% affordable housing. However, the Application Form for this proposed development states that it is for 74 open market homes with no provision for affordable housing. Given that the current landowner in this instance is Somerset Council, this is clearly unacceptable as the landowner is going against its own policy.

In our correspondence with Somerset Council (SC), Oliver Woodhams, the Service Director for Strategic Asset Management, made it clear that the agreement with LiveWest was entered into “taking into account…the potential for development to meet housing and other social needs (including social and affordable housing)”. Therefore, it would be reprehensible to approve a planning application which fails to deliver any affordable housing.

Although the applicant’s affordable housing statement states that “LiveWest will provide 22 homes as affordable (30% of the total)”, they state that they are not proposing to fund this themselves and the building of any affordable homes would be contingent on successfully obtaining a grant from Homes England. Given that the grant is beyond the control of LiveWest and SC, the LPA and its Planning

Committee considering this application should assume that no grant will be forthcoming and should base its decision on there being zero affordable housing, as per LiveWest’s planning application form. In short, this is an application for a 100% market-housing scheme. It is not what we need, nor is it what the Council said it wanted when it entered into the option agreement with Live West.

We note that the applicant’s Financial Viability Statement concludes that it is not financially viable to deliver the development with policy compliant affordable housing. A principal reason given for this is “abnormal costs largely around ground conditions (limestone)”. As these ground conditions make a development incorporating the required number of affordable housing unviable, we would argue that this is not a suitable site for housing development and that planning permission be refused on this basis. This is in line with MDC’s response to Live West’s pre-application advice request which concluded that “The Council has significant concerns in relation to the suitability of the location”. Instead, other sites which can deliver the amount of affordable housing required by policy should be used to meet the demand. This is not NIMBYism. It is the obvious response to an unallocated site beyond a settlement boundary which is offering zero affordable housing.

When analysing LiveWest’s proposed ‘non-compliant’ financial viability appraisal (i.e. without affordable housing), we note that it forecasts a profit of just over £4.5m, with a profit of 16.59%. Yet the applicant’s planning statement specifically points out that “LiveWest are a social landlord not a housebuilder and their motivations and objectives are very different to a housebuilder led company whose main driver is to create profit from development”. If this is the case and LiveWest genuinely do operate as a not-for- profit / limited profit organisation, then there should be no requirement for them to deliver a developer- level profit from this development. We therefore find it unacceptable for LiveWest to propose a housing development with zero affordable housing whilst requiring a profit level of 16.59% on the (100%) market housing. If ever words were shown to be meaningless, it is the comment that LiveWest’s “motivations and objectives are very different to a housebuilder led company”. This application tells a different story.

Asset of Community Value

Remarkably, and unforgivably, no reference is made anywhere in the Planning Application that the site has been listed as an ‘Asset of Community Value’ (ACV). Indeed, under the ‘Designations’ section of the planning statement, it states that the site is “relatively unconstrained”. This is highly misleading as the fact that the site has an ACV designation is a significant material planning consideration. Indeed, it shows a clear disregard for the local community by LiveWest.

This area was granted an ‘Asset of Community Value’ after a fair and rigorous process by Mendip District Council and in spite of counter arguments from Somerset Council (the landowners). After careful deliberation and debate, the Councillors ruled in favour of granting an ACV – a very rare event that does not happen without compelling evidence.

The Councillors acknowledged – after reading the 100+ testimonies from local people – how the fields have been of vital importance to local residents and their families for over 40 years. The application was supported by members of SCC and MDC including Councillors Adam Boyden, Dawn Denton, Drew Gardner and Helen Sprawson-White, and by Frome Town Council and its Mayor Sara Butler. The application was also backed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), the countryside charity.

The community use the area daily to meet and converse, exercise, take in the fresh air, enjoy the tranquillity of the traffic free safe space, quietly observe nature and gain the positive mental health benefits of spending time in natural, green space. Informal community events are also held there – recent events include a bat spotting evening, community picnics and a nature watch which was part of the Frome Big Green Week.

The proposed development would completely destroy this Asset of Community Value. There is no alternative green space for residents within reasonable walking distance as nearby countryside is all privately owned and not publicly accessible. The small amount of green space being proposed by the applicants would in no way mitigate the loss of this ACV. This is not only relevant as a material planning consideration but is also relevant to the assessment of the proposal against Policy DP16 (see below).

To demonstrate just how vital the fields are to the local community’s wellbeing and mental health, here is a just a small selection of quotes from the testimonies that were submitted as part of the ACV application:

“Since the morning of my husband’s death I have walked those fields twice maybe three times a day. And in those darkest times, the connections I made on those fields and the support and humanity I got from the people have been invaluable to me in helping me to ‘get on with it’.”

“I walk these fields. They are my peaceful stress-free refuge from tarmac, pavements, traffic, pollution and the world’s problems. I am no longer young, it also keeps me active. There is never any occasion, even in the rain, when I do not meet a neighbour and converse – problems shared, comfort given.”

“Our children are adopted and had a traumatic start in life which causes them ongoing issues with anxiety and depression. Spending time outdoors in nature at Packsaddle fields really helps to calm their anxiety and boosts their mood. Furthermore, it’s pretty much the only place where our children feel safe enough to go on their own without us.”

“My son is 35 and has autism, he loves to walk in these fields which is not only safe, but benefits his mental wellbeing, a place to escape when everyday life becomes too much.”

“I walk in these fields everyday. I meander and wind my way through and around. As someone who struggles with depression, it brings me great peace to have these fields close to my home at Over Innox.”

“There are community groups in Frome working hard to help with elderly people’s sense of isolation and at Packsaddle that work is carried out by these fields in an informal un-pressured way – in my opinion it contributes hugely to the happy atmosphere of the area.”

“I have used Packsaddle Fields since I was 15 when we moved to the area. We, as a family, have spent plenty of time in the fields at all times of day and evening looking for various wildlife – birds, moths, bats etc. I have just finished a degree in wildlife conservation, and I think that these fields and their wildlife helped me to choose this direction for my future career.”

“Without the fields, we wouldn’t be nearly as connected to the people around us.”

“I have lived on Packsaddle estate for more than 40yrs. We took our children to the fields to play & now take our grandkids to do the same. Dog walks, blackberry picking, climbing trees.”

“These fields give people with an interest in wildlife a real boost and the area is therefore in my opinion a vital space as it provides a place where the soul is refreshed. There is nowhere like it within walking distance. “

“I think the fields have played a huge role in forging the Packsaddle community spirit which is so often, so proudly, so rightly referred to. Geographically and emotionally, they’re at the very centre of this community.”

“I am a resident of Lewis Crescent in Frome, and have lived in Frome for 22 years now. I have been a lone parent of 2 autistic, ADHD children and we have been regular daily users of the fields and

footpaths around Packsaddle. We have engaged in wildlife spotting and seen red kites, field mice, hedgehogs, rabbits, and a wide variety of birds. The flora and fauna have also been invaluable for teaching the children about the natural world around us.”

“IliveatPacksaddleWayandoftenusethefieldforwalks,exploringandwatchingthewildlife. Itisa local patch of land frequented not only by families and walkers but a social meeting point which allows many older people to cross paths and make new friends while enjoying the fresh air and countryside without having to travel.”

“Having moved to the Packsaddle estate just over 2 years ago I can’t count the number of times that the fields have been a place of solace for myself and my partner. We have both previously lived on housing estates lacking in green areas, and were so thrilled to discover the fields just on our doorstep.”

“Everyone I speak to about the fields has stories to tell about them. I go into the fields most days regardless of how long the grass is, or how muddy the ground is. I really can’t imagine my life without this amazing space.”

“I have lived in Lewis Crescent and Park Hill Drive since 1964, I have used the fields daily since I was a child. I played there as a child. My children played up there and now my grand children also live in this area, love to play and walk the dogs in their green space.”

“The Packsaddle Fields have become woven into the local community over many years. Without community we are alone. Without value we are empty. Without assets we are disadvantaged”. Cllr Dawn Denton

“I feel it is important to recognise that these are not ‘just fields’ – they provide an opportunity for human connection. Imagine the potential in this land. Think what they could and should do for the community in the years to come. We cannot afford to lose these green spaces”. Cllr Sara Butler

“CPRE Somerset welcomes the inclusion of Packsaddle Fields in its designation as an Asset of Community Value. This much-valued green space covering 8.3 acres has been in constant daily recreational use for the last 50 years, and deserves to be conserved and protected for the enjoyment of generations of Frome residents to come.” CPRE Somerset.

Please also take a few minutes to view these four 1 minute videos from local people, explaining what the fields mean to them:

Members of the Planning Committee may ask how much weight they should give to the ACV status when determining the application? As this is not defined in statute, it is for Members to decide how much weight to be given to the ACV listing. However, it is important for the LPA to keep in mind the decision of the Upper Tribunal in Banner Homes Limited v St Albans City and District Council [2016]. In that decision, the Tribunal held that “listing [of an ACV] under the 2011 Act does not in itself prevent land being developed but as a matter of planning policy any necessary permission is likely to be refused while land is listed”.

Plainly, the weight to be given to the ACV listing will vary depending on the characteristics of the listing. For example, the ACV might be given little weight if the development proposals for the ACV re-provided the same community asset elsewhere. Or, to take another example, limited weight might be given to an ACV which has been proved to be poorly-used notwithstanding its listed status. In this case, PFP would say that great weight must be given to the retention of the ACV for these reasons:

1. the decision to list the fields as an ACV was very recently made in January 2023;
2. the evidence for the past, present and future use of the fields was accepted by the Council and remains accurate;
3. the scheme will not re-provide the fields elsewhere, nor will it provide the benefits on-site which they currently give to the community;
4. despite the shameful actions which degraded the ecological value of the fields in Summer 2022, the fields were well-used throughout the remainder of 2022, proving their value to the community; and
5. assets which are as well-used and loved as these fields are scarce and should be protected and preserved wherever possible.

Not agricultural land

The applicant’s Planning Statement describes the land as “5 former smaller agricultural fields which are divided by overgrown hedges which include mature trees. The land has not been farmed for a number of years.”. This is misleading. Local residents tell us the land has not been farmed or used for formal grazing for decades (save for a few horses in a small fenced off area of the fields nearly 20 years ago) and has been left to develop into a naturally green space, rich in biodiversity (see our section on Biodiversity). That is why it has been enjoyed so much by the local community for so many years and why it has become a recognised Asset of Community Value.

The reason we raise this point is that Somerset Council has just made arrangements for the land to be grazed by cattle from mid-June onwards and this week has put up signs saying the public must stick to the public and permissive footpaths. This action will largely prevent the local community from continuing to use the space as many people will be too frightened to walk in a field of cows, especially the elderly who make up a large proportion of the local community. And restricting the use of the fields to the public and permissive footpaths will severely limit the area of the fields that those willing to brave the cattle will be able to access.

Whilst Somerset Council may have a legal right to do this as landowner, the timing of this decision to graze the land now – shortly before the planning hearing and after decades of it being left wild – is incredibly suspicious. Especially since SC did not consult with or even give notice to the local community or local councillors prior to arranging the grazing, even though it had full knowledge of the ACV designation of the land.

When we wrote to Oliver Woodhams, Service Director – Strategic Asset Management for Somerset Council, explaining our concern about how the grazing of cattle on the land would severely impact the community’s use of this designated Asset of Community Value, he responded saying that the ACV status “has no relevance”. This speaks volumes.

This sudden decision to graze the land would appear to be a way for Somerset Council to minimise the community and ecological value of the space by claiming that it is merely agricultural land, which it has not been for decades.

Local Green Space

On 6 February 2023, Mendip District Council included Packsaddle Fields in their Greenspace Audit as part of their Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) covering local greenspaces.

The applicant’s planning statement claims that “the council undertook no analysis of the Site in terms of including it within the SPD.” This is not true. MDC went through a process of public consultation and voted on which green spaces to adopt. Packsaddle Fields was reviewed and added to this list. The Greenspace Audit was approved by the MDC Cabinet.

The applicant’s LVIA says:

The site is not an open space, sport or recreation space as designated by policy (DP16). The nearest is Pedlar Grove Play Area 200m west of the centre of the site. The site is recognised in the Open space Audit (2021) 13 as being Typology 3 – Local Green Infrastructure. But is not a formal dedicated greenspace and not cover by Local Plan Policy DP2 or DP16.”

The correct position, however, is as follows: (i) the site is not designated as local greenspace; (ii) the site is an area of open space which is used for recreational purposes as confirmed by the ACV listing; (iii) the site is not identified as an open area of local significance; (iv) the site was included in the Greenspace Audit which accompanied the Greenspace SPD (Feb 2023).

Accordingly, the applicant’s assessment of the relevant policies for the site’s open space credentials is wrong. Both Policy DP1 (local identity and distinctives) and Policy DP16 apply to the site. Policy DP1 applies because the development will “adversely affect or result in the loss of features or scenes recognised as being distinctive” (as the site is listed as an ACV for its recreational value to the community). Policy DP16 applies because the policy “will also apply to new spaces that come forward”. Whilst the site was not included in the LP2 Review, this is for chronological reasons only. The site was included in the Greenspace Audit and identified as a site within typology 3. As such, it is a site to which Policy DP16 applies, as the policy is not ‘frozen in time’ but instead allows for and correctly anticipates that new areas of open space will be identified during the currency of the Local Plan, without necessarily being included as part of a formal Local Plan review.

It is for this reason that paragraph 6.148 of the Local Plan states that “the Council’s default position is that playing fields and other public open spaces are safeguarded from development”. The applicant’s LVIA says that “open space is normally considered to be public space”, with the implication being the space is not public in the sense of being dedicated for public use (such as a Council playground). If that is the implication, it is a misunderstanding of paragraph 6.148. The use of the words “public open space” means what is says, i.e. open space used by the public. The ownership of the fields is irrelevant in policy terms. The facts are that the community use the fields for recreational purposes, have done so for many years, and will do so for many years to come. That is the test against which the ACV application was assessed, and the test which was passed.

As Policy DP16 applies, the applicant is required to demonstrate either that “there is an excess of recreational or open space in the settlement and the proposed loss would not result in a current or likely shortfall during the plan period” or that “suitable alternative recreational or open space, which is adjudged to be of equal or greater benefit to the community as compared with the space which is to be lost, is provided in an accessible location”. The applicant has not addressed either of these policy tests, meaning that the proposal fails to comply with this important policy.

Fly Nuisance

A number of local residents in the Packsaddle area have expressed concern to us about ongoing fly nuisance from the nearby sewage works and that this would impact any new houses built on the site, just as it has for some of the existing houses there. Whilst Wessex Water has made an attempt to mitigate the fly nuisance through adding fly nets in early-mid 2022, residents have told us that nuisance from flies has continued.

We included a photo with our response that a resident who lives off Pedlars Grove took at their property on 29th October 2022 (many months after the fly nets were installed by Wessex water) which clearly shows that flies remain a significant problem in the Packsaddle area. This level of fly infestation is simply not acceptable.

We understand that Wessex Water are in agreement with our concerns as they have objected to the proposed development on the grounds of past fly complaints and the potential complaints. As Wessex Water correctly pointed out in their objection, DEFRA guidance states that “The planning of new residential housing…should preferably not be located within 1 km of an established works”. The above photo shows what happens when this guidance is not followed.

Significant weight should be given to the objection by Wessex Water. They are the statutory consultee responsible for the sewage treatment works and their objection is made on tnhe basis of their first-hand knowledge and experience relating to fly management. The LPA should not countenance granting permission for a scheme which the relevant statutory undertaker has confirmed will result in fly nuisance for new occupiers.

Biodiversity

Site Clearance

In July and August 2022, shortly after LiveWest commenced its baseline ecological surveys, Somerset County Council cleared the site using bulldozers and mowers, destroying large swathes of natural habitat. (We included a number of photos with our response – of the fields before, during and after the clearance in July and August 2022.)

It is our understanding from discussions with involved parties that it was LiveWest who requested Somerset Council to clear the fields. As we explain below, the clearance of the fields would have significantly lowered the baseline value for the Biodiversity Net Gain calculation. We submitted a Freedom of Information request to obtain correspondence and decisions taken in relation to the clearance of the fields and this remains unanswered by Somerset Council and is now overdue by over

30 working days, with no explanation. Until a full explanation is received, the LPA should proceed on a precautionary basis.

The applicant’s Ecological Impact Assessment (EIA) states that “overall the site clearance is not considered to have affected the validity of the survey results, or the assessment of the Site’s value for protected species as presented within this report.” This statement should be treated with extreme caution by the LPA. PFP engaged its own independent ecologist to provide a professional opinion on the likely impact of the clearances. She concluded the clearances would have been impactful, and potentially constituted a wildlife crime. She stated in her report:

• “The end of May is a late start for an ecological survey. This timing particularly risks missing early-flowering flora and early nesting bird species;
• Clearing a site in the third week of July could miss some late-nesting bird species, or repeat nesting attempts;
• Clearing a site in the third week of July could have illegally destroyed some active birds’ nests, dormouse nests and sheltering reptiles and hedgehogs;
• Due to the two clearance events, no data could be collected concerning usage of the site by wildlife from the rest of the year;
• Sticky insect panels are not normally used for ecological surveys; they do not record any non- flying invertebrates, and kill all those trapped (which can include mammals).”

This professional opinion has also been echoed by Somerset Wildlife Trust who expressed concern in their objection to the planning application that “the site was cleared at the height of summer, damaging some of the monitoring infrastructure and meaning that a number of surveys were incomplete”.

The site clearance would have also impacted the nesting bird survey. As Somerset Wildlife Trust have pointed out, the “clearance took place in July and August and the nesting season extends to September. Carrying out a nesting bird survey in May and June does not give sufficient data to make proper assessments given the length of the breeding season”.

The applicant’s EIA makes no mention of any pre-clearance checks being made before the clearances of the fields in July and August. There has certainly been no mention of any mitigations being undertaken (for example, undertaking the clearances in stages, waiting for breeding season to end).

As the optimum time for terrestrial invertebrate study is April to September, it is likely that the clearance would have adversely affected the invertebrate study.

The clearances would also have affected the hedgehog population of the fields. The applicant’s EIA does not mention the presence of hedgehogs on the site, except where it states that the nearest sighting, according to SERC, is 150m away. However, hedgehogs are not only known to inhabit the site but have been seen on the fields by a number of residents. In this instance SERC is inaccurate / incomplete. Hedgehogs are not only present within 150m of the site but in abundance on site and living and foraging directly within the wide area of scrub that was cleared in July last year. The clearance removed not only their source of food and shelter, but also shade in a month in which the temperature rose to 40 degrees for the first time in British history. Sadly, we also know for the fact that at least one adult hedgehog was killed on the site by the clearance itself: its body was discovered by a local resident just hours later.

Taking all the above into account, we firmly believe the clearance catastrophically undermined the ecological survey which then lowered the baseline used to calculate biodiversity net gain.

Biodiversity Net Gain and Ecology

The applicant’s EIA claims the development will produce a net gain for biodiversity both in terms of habitats (+6.44%) and hedgerows (+5.61%). It is important to note that the net gain figures quoted in the applicant’s Planning Statement of +86.44% and +85.11% should be disregarded as they are clearly erroneous.

We believe the BNG estimate is wildly inaccurate. In fact, we doubt there is a net gain at all, given that the 2022 site clearances destroyed the habitat for all species just 2 months after the supposed ‘full season’ ecological survey was begun.

The legal position is important. Schedule 14, Part 2, para 6 of the Environment Act 2021 states as follows:

“If— (a) a person carries on activities on land on or after 30 January 2020 otherwise than in accordance with—

(i) planning permission, or (ii) any other permission of a kind specified by the Secretary of State by regulations, and (b) as a result of the activities the biodiversity value of the onsite habitat referred to in paragraph 5(1) is lower on the relevant date than it would otherwise have been, the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat is to be taken to be its biodiversity value immediately before the carrying on of the activities.”

No attempt has been made by the applicants to assess or estimate the biodiversity value of the site prior to the clearance. Accordingly, the only way in which the LPA can know the true BNG of the fields is to allow the fields to become ecologically restored to a position which reflects their natural state (which would also be the one which they were in before January 2020), and for new surveys to be undertaken to assess the proper BNG baseline.

Additionally, Section 6.4.8. of BS 42020 addresses the need for ecological surveys to include details about the ‘clean up’ of sites. This includes removal of vegetation, alteration of biodiversity features (hedgerows, ponds, ditches, etc), unexplained clean up, or other material events that occur on site. In regard to Biodiversity Net Gain, this guidance is essential as it helps determine the pre-development biodiversity value of the site. The applicant’s EIA does not include this key information which in our view invalidates their EIA and their BNG calculations.

Further points we would like to make regarding the applicant’s EIA are as follows:

• The EIA states clearly that – “the Site was found to have habitat suitable for a range of protected and notable species, including breeding birds, reptiles, dormouse and commuting/ foraging bats (including Annex II species). The development of the Site has the potential to impact on a variety of protected species including foraging and commuting bats, breeding birds, invertebrates, common species of reptile and amphibian and hedgehog. The main impacts identified will be through a result of direct habitat losses and indirect impacts caused by disturbance factors both during construction and operation.” This statement should be given significant consideration by decision makers.
• Removed habitat will not be replaced for several years until completion of the build, and it will not reach the maturity it has grown to (15 years + for mature scrub in this case) for many more. Therefore the claims to be enhancing the biodiversity of the Site are unwarranted and inaccurate.
• The proposed planted semi-ornamental scrub and ornamental trees are not equivalent in ecological value to the existing bramble scrub and mature hedgerows. The reason the area is in high value for so many bird species, bats and hedgehogs is precisely the unmanaged scrubby nature of the site and the ecologically important native species. Amenity planting is not equivalent. The applicant proposes planting plants like Euonymus fortunei sp (x 277); Aucuba japonica (x 49); Lonicera nitida (x 553) which have low to no value for biodiversity.
• Gardens should not be included in the BNG calculations. We were told by Live West that gardens would not be included in the calculations. Yet pg 41 of the EIA states that they are included in the BNG figures.
• A full season survey would have returned over 50 species of bird frequenting the site, rather than the paltry 17 species referenced in the EIA. 56 species were recorded by retired Zoologist and wildlife expert Roger Symes, from his house overlooking the fields between 2020 and 2022. Roger has also recorded several species of amphibian and reptile. None are recorded in the EIA. He has also noted the site is an important habitat for Hedgehogs.
• It is worthy of note that the area including Packsaddle Community Fields was described as being “of international value to foraging and commuting bats…..with high numbers of greater horseshoe bats”. A recent bat count on 12th May 2023, supported by the Somerset Bat Group, detected significant activity on the site, with at least 8 species recorded.
• The ecological value of what the report describes as “dilapidated dry stone walls” does not appear to have been incorporated into the Biodiversity Net Gain assessment. There is no mention of them being important habitats for reptiles, amphibians, plants and invertebrates, yet they are widely recognised to be so.
• Hedgehog holes cut into fences to allow them to traverse the site freely is no compensation for removal of their habitat. Nor are bird boxes, bat boxes and insect hotels.
• There is a misleading conflation of values being attributed to the trees on site. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) states that Hawthorn, Goat Willow, Plum, Elder and Silver Birch are low value trees. They are in fact high value for biodiversity. They are prioritising Amenity Value (subjective) over Ecological Value (objective/scientific). Hawthorn in particular is an ecologically high value tree. And yet the many on site are slated for removal. This point has been echoed by Somerset Wildlife Trust who have stated in their objection that the trees “have been considered on amenity value only and whether they will cause ‘nuisance’ to the properties on the development.”
• All trees in the survey are recorded as being in good to fair physiological and structural condition. This contradicts the general tone of the Plan Proposal which suggests the site is poor / neglected.
• 175 trees are being planted on site, which will be juvenile trees, no match for the early mature, semi mature and mature trees slated for removal, or their high ecological value. The survey has not detailed how many are being removed, but it includes a whole group of category B trees (Silver Birch and Goat Willow) and whole groups of Hawthorn, Elder, Elm, and Sycamore – all high value for biodiversity. Again, the report says their removal will have limited effect on the amenity value. We should not be concerned here with amenity value but their ecological and biodiversity value, which has been disregarded.
• Why are there redactions on pages 5, 9, 11 and 13 of the EIA?

A final point regarding the applicant’s claimed BNG figures of +6.44% and hedgerows +5.61%. Even if these were accurate figures (which we strongly dispute for the above reasons), these figures fall well short of the required BNG target figure of 10%. Whilst this requirement does not come into statutory effect until November 2023, it would be reprehensible if the LPA did not insist on it for permissions granted in the lead up to that date, particularly where the Council is the landowner.

Recent unlawful partial clearance

As explained in our section on Asset of Community Value, earlier this month (June 2023) Somerset Council suddenly decided to graze cattle on the land after decades of allowing it to grow wild (save for the 2022 clearance explained above). On Friday 9th June 2023, contractors working for SC cut back some hedgerows in preparation for the grazing.

This is right in the middle of nesting season and we understand that the area was not surveyed by an ecologist for nests prior to the clearance, which is unlawful. Eye witnesses who were there at the time saw at least one active nest (a robin’s) being destroyed. The remains of a dormouse nest were also found destroyed on the ground. We have reported these actions as a wildlife crime which is currently being investigated.

The relevance of this to the planning application is that this further partial clearance and the inevitable damage that grazing cattle will do to the biodiversity of the land during this current nesting season will once again reduce the baseline biodiversity of the site. Additionally, the sudden, unannounced decision to graze the land now, just ahead of the planning hearing, suggests a potential attempt by SC to wrongly claim that the land is agricultural, and therefore of less ecological value.

Housing supply

The application places significant justification for the proposed development on a claimed “309-unit shortfall against the residual [housing] requirement” for Frome.

However, their figures are derived from the 2021 MDC Local Plan and are out of date. The latest figures supplied by the Principal Planning Officer at Somerset Council, Andre Sestini, state “the development completions and delivery for Frome would now be in excess of the local plan minimums”. Furthermore, these latest figures do not include other potentially significant proposals in the pipeline for Frome.

Therefore LiveWest’s claims that this development is needed to help with Frome’s 309 unit housing shortage should be disregarded by decision makers.

In any event, this development would not deliver the homes that Frome ‘needs’. 70% of this development would be comprised of expensive 3 and 4 bedroom homes of which the town already has an abundance. These are unaffordable for most local people. From our discussions with FACLT (Frome Area Community Land Trust), Frome Town Council, Somerset Council itself, and from analysing Homefinder Somerset numbers (the latest data on Somerset Homefinder shows that 76% of people waiting for housing in Mendip need 1 or 2 bedroom homes), it is clear that what Frome genuinely needs is affordable 1 and 2 bedroom homes – especially the former – predominantly in the social rent sector, for local people, particularly young adults seeking to find their own accommodation. This proposal guarantees exactly none of these. It is clear that the proposal has been designed to maximise profit rather than meet the pressing needs of Frome and Frome people.

The planning application focuses heavily on the lack of a 5 year plan for the supply of deliverable land for housing. It should be noted, however, that the primary reason Mendip were not able to demonstrate a 5 year supply is because of the phosphate issues on the Somerset Levels, where the Government stopped them approving a number of sizeable developments in the area. We understand that there are active discussions that could remove this issue, from proposed legislation deleting this requirement (the subject of recent press articles), to other imminent major developments (Saxonvale 300 homes) and possible developments (Selwood Garden Village 1,700 homes).

Furthermore, given that Frome has more than sufficient housing, the focus for making up any shortfall should be on the other large towns (Glastonbury, Shepton Mallet, Street and Wells). The grant of permission for yet more homes within Frome would be an example of poor planning in its purest sense, with services further strained and community assets lost, and all because a narrow window of opportunity has opened up for housebuilders to make speculative applications on greenfield sites outside Frome’s development limits. The triggering of the “tilted balance” does not negate nor outweigh the numerous reasons set out above as to why the scheme should be refused.

Finally, the planning statement claims in 5.11 that “this proposal is located to the edge of Frome”. This is not correct, as the applicant should know. The site is outside the settlement boundary (development limits) of Frome. Core Policy 1 of Mendip LPP1 (Spatial Strategy) states that “Development outside the development limits will be ‘strictly controlled’ and only be allowed where it benefits economic activity or extends the range of facilities available to communities.”. The provision of 100% market homes, 70% of which will be expensive 3/4 bedroom homes, with zero affordable housing and ther removal of a much-valued ACV is unquestionably not in compliance with CP1. Policy CP1 is a restrictive policy and must be applied in that way. The policy means what it says.

Sustainability

The planning application places significant justification for the proposed development on the ‘‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ argument. However, this proposal is not a sustainable development.

Sustainability is defined in the NPPF as having 3 overarching objectives – social, environmental, economic. This development does not meet any of these objectives as explained below:

Social

The social objective states that a development should “support strong, vibrant and healthy communities”. In contrast to this objective, the development would destroy the existing Asset of Community Value which is a lynchpin of the local community, keeping it strong, vibrant, connected and healthy. The proposed development would actually harm the local community socially, rather than support it. The small amount of publicly accessible greenspace in the proposal can in no way mitigate the loss of the Asset of Community Value.

Environmental

The environmental objective states that a development should “protect and enhance our natural…environment”. This development would destroy 8 acres of existing, natural, biodiverse green space; green space that was formally recognised in MDC’s Greenspace Audit as part of their Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) covering local greenspaces. The ‘travel of direction’ for the site is clear: it will be a prime candidate site for inclusion as a local greenspace when the Local Plan Review is next held, with the applicable planning protctions which such local greenspaces acquire under the NPPF (ie equivalent to Green Belt protection).

Although the applicant claims that the development would enhance biodiversity, this is clearly a folly, as our evidence in our section on Biodiversity shows. A key point to be made here is that the baseline for the applicant’s biodiversity calculations was artificially lowered by the clearance and mowing of the fields by Somerset County Council during July and August 2022, shortly after the baseline ecological surveys had commenced. It is our understanding from discussions with involved parties that it was LiveWest who requested the fields to be cleared. As explained in our Biodiversity section, our Freedom of Information request regarding correspondence and decisions taken around the clearance of the fields remains conspicuously unanswered by Somerset Council and is now overdue by over 30 days, with no explanation.

The NPFF environment objective additionally states that developments should be “mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy”. The proposed development fails to achieve this objective because the applicant is:

NOT installing Heat Source Pumps (only gas boilers)
NOT adopting the legislation coming into law in 2025 that bans gas boilers
NOT installing Solar Heating
NOT installing Triple Glazing
NOT installing Charging points, only the minimum mandatory cable routing
NOT harvesting rainwater, short of supplying a water butt!
NOT recycling ‘grey’ or ‘black’ water
NOT using soakaways (even though the Application Form states they will be)
NOT following the 75% carbon emission reduction requirements coming into law in 2025

And the applicant:

IS routing all clean water drainage from roofs etc. into the mains drainage system
IS routing all grey and black water into the mains sewage system
IS connecting all the houses up to the Gas and Electricity mains
IS only implementing the absolute legal minimum carbon emission reductions of 31%
IS only following the minimal legal building requirements in the other areas (but giving the impression this is something good they are choosing to do)

Whilst the applicant claims that it would install air source heat pumps for 17 affordable rental homes, it should be noted that this planning application is for 74 open market properties. All references to affordable housing can and should be ignored by the LPA.

The application mentions that the site is near a public transport route and the development would provide bicycle storage. However, the proposal includes 218 car parking spaces for 74 houses. That is about as far removed from being sustainable as it could be and suggests that sustainable transport is not envisaged in reality.

A final important point here is that Somerset Council is the current landowner and is participating in this proposed development. Therefore the development should be compliant with SC’s own Climate Emergency Strategy. The number 1 objective in SC’s strategy for the built environment is “All new developments (new homes and non-residential) will be…at least zero carbon and climate resilient from as early a date as possible”. As shown above, the proposed development is nowhere near zero carbon and on this basis it would not be acceptable for the Council’s own LPA to grant planning permission for this development.

Economic

The application justifies its economic benefits on the basis that it would “assist the local economy through construction jobs and jobs in the supply chain as well as retail sales for new domestic products such as carpets and white goods”. However, LiveWest does not make any pledges to use local firms for the construction and fit-out of the houses. LiveWest is not based locally and a company of its size would realistically have centralised buying arrangements so is unlikely to be using Frome based firms (if it planned to, it would have stated this). Therefore we can assume that there will be minimal economic benefits from this proposal.

Landscape Impact

We have discussed the potential impact of the proposed development on the landscape with CPRE (The Countryside Charity). Their view, which we support, is that:

“Packsaddle Fields is one of a number of green countryside wedges that come into the town. For example, another green wedge comes into the town to the east from Gypsy lane, and there are others on the west side of town e.g. at Whatcombe farm, Egford Hill farm and Whitemill farm. These locally distinctive green wedges give local area character to the town edges. Simply concreting over Packsaddle Fields would be harmful to the character and appearance of the town’s edge at this location and not respect its distinctive landscape features.

There would also be loss of existing hedges on the site which define the smaller fields. These small historic fields are a valuable and key characteristic of the landscape. The existing hedges have landscape value because they define historic field boundaries. On our site visit we also saw 18th century field boundary walls which are non-designated heritage assets. Their loss should also be placed in the planning balance. In our view all these distinctive landscape features in open countryside on the town edge should be conserved for future generations to enjoy. They are what gives the town edge at this location its distinctive character and appearance.”

We would also like to draw attention to Mendip District Council’s conclusion of LiveWest’s pre- application advice request which stated:

“The Council has significant concerns in relation to the suitability of the location, landscape impact and fly nuisance. Based on the information submitted, harms are considered significant and demonstrable that would not be outweighed by the benefit of market and affordable housing delivery.”

On Page 13 of the planning application form, it asks whether the site can be seen from a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land. The applicant ticked ‘No’ which is incorrect – it can be seen from several footpaths also from Packsaddle Way and Iron Mill Lane.

On Page 8 of the planning application form, it asks “Are there trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that could influence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character?”. The applicant ticked ‘No’, but the hedgerow in the field next door was refused permission to remove it on the basis that the hedgerow was important. Click here to see that planning application and subsequent refusal.

Heritage

We read with interest the ‘Historic Environment Assessment’ (HEA) written by AC Archaelogy. It confirms our belief that the Heritage Value of Packsaddle Community Fields is an important consideration. We noted with particular interest the authors’ comments copied below:

“Of historic importance, was the identification of dry stone walls……All the boundaries within the application area were very wide and all lay along boundaries present on an 18th century map. All the boundaries, and structures within them, are considered to have been in existence for at least 250 years.”

“It is considered that these boundaries have some historic interest.”

“The application area…..formed part of the former royal forest of Selwood……the surviving boundaries within the application area hold some historic and archaeological interest in their own right.”

“The application area stands at the top of a hill which would have had wide ranging views across the landscape to the north, west and south, and may have provided a favoured position for prehistoric funerary monuments.”

Packsaddle Community Fields, as conclusively shown by the analysis and maps included within the HEA, are an important part of North Frome’s agricultural story. The relationship of this area to neighbouring properties – Packsaddle Farm and Selwood Lodge being the two most notable of them – and to the surrounding environs, goes back hundreds of years. A residential development on Packsaddle Community Fields would constitute a great loss, particularly when their accessibility to the public for the last 50 years has facilitated an ongoing connection between the inhabitants of North Frome and its agrarian past. Faint promises to replace lost hedgerows, for instance, do not adequately compensate the area or the town for this great loss.

Community consultation exercise

The main planning statement makes no reference whatsoever to the community consultation exercise which LiveWest carried out prior to submitting this application. We must draw decision-makers’ attention to the results of the exercise which was that of the 143 responses sent to Live West, 140 were objections and only 3 were in support. This again underlines the fact that this development does not support the housing needs of the people of Frome and that almost everyone in the community is opposed to these plans.

Electricity Supply Concerns

It should be noted that the Packsaddle area is already blighted by frequent powercuts and inconsistency of supply. These issues already exceed what is reasonable to expect. We would urge the Council to obtain both a full report from SSEN (the provider to this area) detailing (over, say, the last 12-24 months) the number and severity of disruptions, and also assurances from them that the additional demand placed upon supply by 74 new dwellings would not further exacerbate the problem. Local residents are rightly concerned about the reliability of power supply to their properties.

Health implications of the development

There are multiple, peer reviewed studies and research that all show developing over green space is connected to degeneration in our health and well being. For example, Pall et al (2018) have shown significant health affects and implications attached to increased geopathic stress (concreting over green space) and the increase in electrical activity and electromagnetic interference (EMF) associated with building on nature/green space. The basis of the Pall et all (2018) study reveals conclusive evidence connecting building and developing green space and the associated increases in EMF exposure and electrical activity in the conditions below:

1. Attack our nervous systems including our brains leading to widespread neurological/neuropsychiatric effects and possibly many other effects. This nervous system attack is of great concern.

2. Attack our endocrine (that is hormonal) systems. In this context, the main things that make us functionally different from single celled creatures are our nervous system and our endocrine systems – even a simple planaria worm needs both of these. Thus the consequences of the disruption of these two regulatory systems is immense, such that it is a travesty to ignore these findings.

3. Produce oxidative stress and free radical damage, which have central roles in essentially all chronic diseases.

4. Attack the DNA of our cells, producing single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA and oxidised bases in our cellular DNA. These in turn produce cancer and also mutations in germ line cells which produce mutations in future generations.

5. Produce elevated levels of apoptosis (programmed cell death), events especially important in causing both neurodegenerative diseases and infertility.

6. Lower male and female fertility, lower sex hormones, lower libido and increased levels of spontaneous abortion and, as already stated, attack the DNA in sperm cells.

7. Produce excessive intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i and excessive calcium signaling.

8. Attack the cells of our bodies to cause cancer. Such attacks are thought to act via 15 different mechanisms during cancer causation.

Huberman et al (2023) from Stanford University support and reinforce the previous findings of Pall et al, by elaborating further areas such as reductions in fertility and changes in DNA structures attached to developing and building on green space.