Case Study  U D P 

(first review, section W13)

according to a submission  from an expert consultant:

3.1   Land in the west of the development site close to the Mill Stream is to be
retained for the benefit of nature conservation.   If the results of the
contamination study confirm that the existing vegetation can be left in situ
then the area should be protected during the destructive search and subsequent
site operations.   The areas will be demarcated using chestnut paling fence to
reduce the chance of contractors accidentally damaging these areas.

3-3   Water voles are present along the bank of the Mill Stream outside the site
boundary. No areas along the stream will be included with this destructive
search operation. Where subsequent operations need to occur close to the
stream, including the removal of the concrete wall along the site boundary,
working practices will need to be agreed in advance.

So where was the need for any sort of ambiguity?

The crucial soil report had already been cited as a background paper
to the Planning officer's committee report, October 2001.

    A survey was completed during the summer of 1997 by Hyder Consulting Ltd.

and in 1990 when Houslow Council undertook a survey the site was issued with a Clearance Ccertificate!

Before:
photo taken before approval of an Outline Planning Application
(click to see high resolution version)

On this "brownfiled site" (as described by consultants), vacated for thirty years, many hundreds of trees had grown to more than the height of any human visitor. 

 

photo 31st October 2002

The area marked on the approved application as to be conserved is completely cleared, except for a couple of trees.