Cheshire East’s planning application ref 23/4152M

FoPP have undertaken a comprehensive review of all the documents related to this proposal and have submitted a 50-page objection which sets out our concerns regarding a range of fundamental omissions, errors, and inconsistencies in this application. The points listed below provide a summary of our key concerns.

1. A gross error in Jacobs’ communication of risk to your Council appears to have shaped the
whole philosophy of your Council’s response: 

From the initial design options considered, and potentially the length of time initially allocated for public consultations, and the rejection of alternatives suggested by the community: Even though Jacobs has acknowledged the error, all options put forward by them were developed when the risk had been incorrectly plotted in the unacceptable zone of risk. Jacobs own risk assessment now identifies that the risk is within tolerable limits which demonstrates that there are no “clear overriding reasons for allowing the development.” This is not demonstrated in the reports submitted as part of this planning
application.

2. Friends of Poynton Pool objects to Cheshire East Council’s (“CEC”) planning application
23/4152M for works at Poynton Pool: 

FoPP has requested that this planning application is deferred for additional investigations, less damaging interventions and further community
consultation.

3. Engineers Jacobs UK Limited (“Jacobs”) as sole provider: 

CEC has relied solely on Jacobs to conduct all surveys and reports that subsequently recommended Option 3C flood improvement resilience scheme, which forms the basis of this planning application. Inaccurate and incomplete baseline data coupled with a light touch due diligence approach has led to poor
recommendations being made by Jacobs and subsequently adopted by CEC. The resulting proposed scheme design is disproportionate to any flood risk and will have a significant negative impact on this historic landscape and wildlife habitats.

4. A full site survey and ground investigation has not been undertaken: 

There are no historical records of the construction of the dam and the applicant has failed to investigate the structure of the embankment. Without investigation, it is impossible to know if the existing embankment will tolerate the proposed work, or that the method of ‘Flood Resilience’ proposed, is the correct way forward. There is emerging evidence based on initial studies carried out by FoPP that the embankment may be designed to be permeable.

5. The catchment area of Poynton Pool is not fully understood: 

Historic flow and levels data has not been used to calibrate the flood modelling, which is a potentially significant design weakness. The geology of the direct catchment area has not been fully investigated. The Jacobs defined catchment area includes old coal mines and presents a scenario where underground flows may prove larger than expected.

6. The volume of Poynton Pool has not been investigated: 

The 2016 s10 Inspection Report (Mott Macdonald 2016) relied on previous reports for the stated area, volume, and depth. Rather than investigate the depth of the lake independently, Jacobs has chosen to rely on hearsay without any measurement data to substantiate the figures. The pool volume has independently been estimated to be in the region of 80,000m3 , identifying a substantial error in the volume used in the Jacobs’ calculations.

7. Options for spillway work at Poynton Pool are disproportionate to the risk: 

The initial options design process by Jacobs was completed when reports (wrongly) showed that the level of risk of upper dam failure, with or without additional rain events due to climate change, fell into the ‘unacceptable’ range. To put it simply, the reduced risk possibly negates the need to improve the spillway at all.

8. The scheme costs are significant and likely to increase:

The original cost of this scheme when recommended for approval was £540k. This has since increased to £1.38m. Accounting for the c.£3m CAVAT amenity value of the trees affected by this proposal as a cost of implementing these works would increase the scheme costs to c£4.38m.

9. CEC is taking on a 29-year management plan: 

The Landscape Management Plan is scheduled for 30 years with the contractor only managing the first year including defects/liability. Financial provision for what will be a significant 29-year liability also needs to be addressed.

10. Inadequate mitigation planting: Planning Statement, sect. 4.2.1, para. 4 states: 

“The compensation is considered sufficient to conclude that there will be no significant residual effect on the SBI (Site of Biological Importance) once the compensatory planting has matured.” This is an inaccurate statement. The compensatory planting is in Woodford, outside of Cheshire East, without any public access and the SBI is at Poynton Park.

11. It is a point of dispute that the scheme does not meet the criteria for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): 

At section 1.3.1 of the Environment Assessment (EA) report the size of the area impacted is stated as 0.76ha. This was an increase over the originally submitted 0.19ha, which was queried by FoPP at the time of the consultation and whilst, as a result of our objections it was increased, it remains inaccurate. As an example, it does not include the tree cover on the edge of the pool which is clearly detailed as impacted on the mapping provided within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) report.

12. The impact of the application proposal on the historical designed landscape is catastrophic: 

36% of the 86 mature trees recorded in the Jacobs tree survey will be removed and Jacobs acknowledges that the remaining mature trees recorded by them within the work area will be “Compromised and likely lost.” Furthermore, there are additional mature trees that have not been recorded by Jacobs, which will also be lost or “Compromised and likely lost.” The permanent loss of trees from the two 40-metre wide clearings, compounded by the loss of, or damage to, the remaining mature trees will open up westerly views from within the Park to the extent that traffic on London Road North and the mid-20th century dwellings to the east will be clearly visible all year round.

13. The Cheshire East Local Plan specifically identifies Poynton Pool as a Site of Biological Importance/Local Wildlife Site: 

Over 67 protected species have been identified at the Pool; 15 red listed. The EIA is required to ensure this protected habitat is not destroyed.

14. Bat roosts are transitory in nature: 

The bat roost potential survey report is flawed in that is does not include all trees that could be used as bat roosts. There are many more than 16 trees (with 3
graded as high) that exhibit bat roosting potential out of over 200 trees onsite. The AIA report does not map more than half the trees with stems over 750mm diameter. Some of these show characteristics that could be potentially used by bats and they have not been surveyed. Further surveys of all potential bat roost trees throughout a whole flight season are needed to ensure any roosts are found. This should be supplemented with flight surveys undertaken within the
woodland to help identify any emergence sites. The current flight surveys were completed away from the woodland outside of the 50m zone of influence. These reports are now out of date (legally required to be within 12 months).

15. Mandatory duty: The applicant’s Planning Statement sect. 3.2, para. 4 states: 

“Overall, due to the legislative requirements and the established flood risk in the area, CEC has a mandatory duty to take action and implement a flood resilience scheme. The resulting scheme has been carefully considered through an extensive optioneering process and further detail of this process is provided in the Summary Options Report (Ref: BRJ10627-JAC-XX-XX-RP-C-0001)”. This is grossly misleading. The statutory requirement is to carry out the 10-yearly Section 10 inspection and to implement the recommendations that were set out in Mott Macdonald’s 2016 Section10 inspection report.
This has been done; a flood study has been produced and a drawdown plan has been produced, and both have been signed off by Jacobs’ ‘All Reservoirs Panel Engineer’ (ARPE).

16. Inaccurate works area plotted: 

The site edged red on the submitted Site Location Plan includes the entire car park, but the drawing submitted with the AIA and Arboricultural Method Statement does not. The east side of the car park and the car park access have been excluded from the submitted Tree Removal and Protection Plan, the RAG Assessment plan, and the Tree Constraints Plan. Without adequate protection during the development and in the context of CEC policy SE 5, these neighbouring trees should be assumed lost to the application proposal.

17. Public safety: 

The revised Option 3C proposal will involve creating two 40-metre-wide clearings, where there are no trees or shrubs, and a sloped embankment designed to allow a constant flow of water from the Pool into the adjacent B5092 should the Pool breach the dam. The trees and shrubs currently act as a natural barrier, substantially restricting pedestrians and pets to the footpath and containing them within the Park boundary. No replacement boundary treatment is proposed. Their removal will mean that a child or pet could easily run down the embankment and straight into the flow of traffic. The B5092 London Road North has four lanes of high-volume traffic and a 40mph speed limit. If someone is hit by a car at 40mph they are 90% likely to be killed.

18. Public engagement: 

A petition, organised by FoPP and signed by 5,820 Cheshire East residents over a period of eight weeks, was formally submitted to CEC on Wednesday, 4 October 2023. Most signatures (c.5,000) were from Poynton adult residents. This equates to about 45% of the voting population in Poynton and illustrates the failure of CEC to engage and develop a plan of action that is acceptable to the community. The Council has not complied with this guidance or their own policy and to date has clearly not listened to the voice of its constituents.

19. The required rigour and scrutiny has not been applied:

Adherence to best practice local council and national governance has not been systematically followed and does not provide enough protection against the wrong commercial and environmental decision being made.

20. History is littered with public outrage in the aftermath of decisions made in haste:

 FoPP members would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council to find a reasonable and balanced solution for Poynton Pool, to use CEC’s strapline “working for a brighter future together.”