Page 253 - Eden Meadow 35 houses application as of 12 October

Land to the Rear of Eden Meadows David Huskisson – Consultee Response

2.0 DAVID HUSKISSON – CONSULTEE RESPONSE

2.1 The following section sets out each comment provided from David Huskisson, and a response
in turn.

1) A 5 metre margin is a small step in the right direction but it
is clear, even on the basis of the sketch, that the margin
would not all be planted so 5m does not in fact mean very
much. It is the detail that will be vital. For example,
drainage runs often end up being put through such areas,
limiting planting. This was the situation on parts of the
previous scheme.

2.2 There is a minimum 5m buffer provided along the boundaries, with the width typically much

greater at up to 12m along the southern boundary in particular. The planting proposals have
been cognisant of the drainage strategy to give assurance that the detail is implementable.

2) Where the margin is limited to 5m, for example by proposed
buildings along part of the eastern side, maintenance
access will obviously reduce the width below 5m, indeed
clear access will be required all the round to deter garden
rubbish etc being dumped and ensure maintenance can be
effectively delivered.

2.3 The LBMS sets out maintenance and management prescriptions and this positive management
will enhance the landscape features (both existing and proposed) over the longer term and
ensure that the hard and soft landscape features are managed in a positive way. The design

intention is to create a more naturalised edge that pulls and pushes in depth rather than a
strictly regular buffer.

3) There is no margin to the north western boundary. What is
the proposal here?

2.4 Rear gardens and forecourts back on to a native hedgerow along the north-western boundary.

4) One of the hammerheads encroaches into the 5 metre
margin.

2.5 The scheme layout has since been altered.

5) Where the 5 m margin and other soft areas abut vehicular
accesses, parking areas etc, how will parking trespass be
prevented? This potential conflict is made more significant
by the proposed reduced carriageway widths, which are to
be welcomed.

27912/A5/GM 2 September 2020